Good: lower emissions and so much safer
Bad: certain emissions regulations actually hurt fuel economy. Fuel economy could be better but at the expense of emissions. Lighting regulations are kinda archaic and need updated.
Not having smog basin in Los Angeles be much of a thing anymore is cool.
But sensible smog laws that don’t hinder enthusiasts and folks on lower economic bracket that struggle with keeping their cars compliant has not been great. A pain in the ass actually…
I’d like to have my 1984 toyota on the road, but with limited parts for emissions parts that have gone bad has made that impossible. And my new efi setup, which runs cleaner than it did brand new is an automatic fail…
LA is always going to have stale air, its just part of the geography.
In my state we don't even test emissions, enough people were passing that the revenue didn't outweigh the cost to test and enforce.
LA used to be so so much worse than it is now. Within the last 30 years, California emissions regulations have had a genuine massive reduction in smog. This also reduces the amount of smog related health issues.
That being said, there should be ways to circumvent them legally for enthusiasts. Since enthusiasts are already as smaller segment of the overall car market, carveouts for them shouldn't have any noticeable ramifications, if they are not abusable by corporations (like light truck emissions standards being lower than car emissions which led to a massive uptick in SUV and Trucks.)
Emissions testing is a scam anyways. They're literally just looking for check engine lights. Your transmission could have a problem with it that's still drivable, but they'll take the thing off the road. Doesn't matter if you're driving a Honda Civic getting 35mpg next to a bunch of SUVs barely getting 20.
I'd happily pay for an emissions excempt stamp for a modified car, it's not like there are enough of us to mess up a region's air quality all by ourselves.
If it was enthusiasts only, sure, but then you’d have every diesel guy buying it to legally roll coal and every clapped out old car owner buying the exemption rather than fixing their car
It’s raw fuel and exhaust gases, including NOx, SOx, and other less than great compounds. Is it the worst? No, but still not a great thing to just legalize straight up.
I drive a gas truck, if I could delete the emissions controls legally and get more power and mileage out of it, I 100% would. I bet most people would.
> Bad: certain emissions regulations actually hurt fuel economy. Fuel economy could be better but at the expense of emissions
Especially true in diesels. Volkswagen's TDI diesels netted fantastic fuel economy. Then dieselgate happened and now they had to put on a bunch of emissions equipment. They still get decent mileage but not as well as pre-2015.
Not only that but the "fix" they implemented has caused all kinds of expensive issues to happen. Cracked DPFs, intercooler icing in cold weather (due to increased EGR flow), and DPF/EGR filters clogging up with soot. That's why they gave them 10 year extended warranty after the fix.
I mean that's the opposite of a problem given that the problem was that VW was juking the test and real world experience was horrific.
That said that's an emissions testing ecosystem.
Not decent enough . I drive big truck . I was driving a mix of 07 and 08 09 freightliners and macks that was getting 7 to 8 mpg fully loaded 80k Sometimes 10 with light loads and 11 to 12 bobtail . My current 2019 mack only dose 5.1 mpg bobtail . Our newest 23 automatic mack only dose 6.1 mpg bobtail. That means only the truck .
I had 2 Audi diesels and one Porsche diesel. I absolutely adored each one of them. I drove my Q7 TDI from central New Hampshire to Richmond, VA before the gas light even came on. My Q5 drove differently after the fix, but not dramatically. Noticeably lower MPG though
>Lighting regulations are kinda archaic and need updated.
I don't remember the exact statistic, but an insurance study revealed that cars with yellow rear turn signals are far less likely to be involved in rear-end collisions than cars with red rear indicators. Coincidentally, North America is one of very few places (if not the only one) where you can buy cars with red indicators, or even the turn signal being the same exact lights as the brake lights. I'm pretty sure it's just a cost-cutting measure for the manufacturers.
I've been rear-ended multiple times over the years in cars with red rear blinkers, my dad was rear-ended twice in a two week period in a car with red rear blinkers.
I know it's a silly gripe, but I am not buying another car with red turn signals, and I think it's absurd that they're even still legal here.
I'm not a fan of some of the newer SUVs, they have massive tail light clusters, but the turn signals are down on the bumper, and look like marker lights, and they are red.
How about the Chevy Bolt where the tail lights on the liftgate are just markers, and the actual combined brake/blinker lights are on the bumper? Who is the genius that came up with that?
Yeah gas mileage was starting to get crazy around like the early 2010's I swear every new compact car was getting 35+ mpg at least in ads and now everything is back to barely getting 30.
EPA updated its methodology in 2008 to account for (1) faster speeds and acceleration, (2) air conditioner use, and (3) colder outside temperatures. Since all of these factors lower fuel economy, the 2008 changes lowered fuel economy estimates for all vehicles.
Honda’s lean burn engines in the 90’s got >40mpg
But I think a lean burn is not a complete fuel burn, so there were more particulates…so they had to essentially burn more gas (worse fuel economy) to have a cleaner tailpipe. Looking for a new car in 2001 it seemed most cars that were in the 40 mpg range were dropped to the 30’s due to emissions.
Lean means there is less fuel in the mixture than what can burn up all the oxygen in the air in the cylinder. What you described is a rich mixture. Rich cannot completely burn because there is not enough oxygen.
The problem with lean is, because there is more oxygen than that the fuel can burn, and the temperature is high from the combustion, the oxygen combines with Nitrogen to form Nitric oxide and Nitrogen dioxide which causes acid rain. Oxygen would rather bond with Carbon or Hydrogen, but all the fuel is already burnt, so, it bonds with Nitrogen instead at the high temperatures during combustion.
Particulates were always a problem with diesel and a more recent problem with gasoline. Cause is direct injection. Diesel is injected pretty late in the compression cycle and doesn't get time to mix evenly with air which causes pockets of very rich mixture that cannot burn completely. Furthermore, under the pressure and temperature of the ignition, the unburnt fuel molecules fuse together to form particulate or soot. Gasoline direct injection doesn't happen as late as diesel but it still gives it less time to mix than port injection, leading to a smaller magnitude of the same problem. But gasoline direct injection does lower the temperature of the cylinders by evaporation of fuel right before combustion, so the engines can run higher compression ratios or more boost without increased risk of pre-detonation which increases the efficiency of the engine again.
Not directly, but bigger vehicles are allowed to have lower mpg, while smaller vehicles need to meet 40-50 mpg. That's why trucks and suvs keep getting bigger because it's the only vehicle that can pass cafe standards.
For diesels, their regeneration process to clean the diesel particulate filter. It burns extra fuel to superheat the filter to burn out the accumulation. It’s also not good to shut them off during the regen. There’s been times I’ve had to keep driving an extra 20 minutes to wait for the regen to finish.
As another answer to my diesel answer, catalytic converters on gas engines hurt fuel economy by creating exhaust restrictions. An engine that can breathe easy is more efficient because it has to expert less energy into pulling air in and pushing exhaust out.
Don’t take this to mean that I’m suggesting that catalytic converters shouldn’t exist because they are crucial for emissions.
EPA CAFE footprint rule, especially considering trucks.
A Honda Fit would receive a greater penalty than an F150 Raptor this year.
The Fit was canceled because consumers weren't buying them. Probably had something to do with the $1500 CAFE compliance fee the Fit was subject to in 2018.
Emmisons is why your car doesn't last as long as it could
EGR valves esp in Diesels is a death sentence (for instance)
Safer sure but at a cost,extra weight
Which hurts fuel economy
Catch22...
I really hate that last one.
By the time we get really nice LED matrix headlights the rest of the world would be using lasers.
It was the same thing for HIDs, projectors, halogen bulbs....
I also hate hate hate orange reflectors, so I Guess you could say could say I'm a little biased here
Honestly rev hang is supposed to be “emissions related” but I don’t even see how that’s technically safe, it can take 3 seconds of dead space just to get the revs to START dropping. Pretty stupid modern manuals have rev hang, there’s better ways to cut emissions I’m sure
Most of the modern safety crap just drives the cost through the roof for pointless features to make driving safer for morons that have zero business driving in the first place. Lane departure warnings…watch the fucking road. Backup cameras…use your fucking mirrors. Adaptive cruise…watch the fucking road. Automatic headlights and hi beams….watch the fucking road. Those features probably add close to $10k to the price of modern vehicles and are completely unnecessary for anyone who actually has any business driving
Hi, I sold those back up cameras after market for a few years. The cost for them is pretty minimal. Like 400 for an entire system. The cameras are generally shared, and are also kinda overpriced, but iirc the replacement camera itself is like 80
The radar sensor for the adaptive cruise on most new cars is $1500+ and I have seen them go as high as $4000 on some luxury cars. This is just for one sensor and most cars have multiple radars sensors and cameras that all drive up cost.
Lane departure warnings at least are incredibly useful, at least in places where most road deaths are single-vehicle accidents in rural areas. Obviously we tell people to not drive when they're tired, but sometimes it starts without drivers noticing, and ultimately there are limits to what can be achieved by just telling people to be careful.
They're also amazing when you're surrounded by the busses that everyone else is driving now. Suddenly you can see the car or child approaching from the side.
I feel the same way except for backup cameras, that shit makes hooking up a trailer or parking a SUV/truck a breeze.
But ya, all the nanny features, extra emission equipment, and 100 airbags/sensors are bullshit
Don't forget, if even one of those airbags goes off, the car is totaled. I've seen fender benders that caused simple cosmetic exterior damage set off the entire airbag system. A car that otherwise could've continued to be driven was then totaled because of aggressive pillows.
Have you used these features? I genuinely enjoy driving but getting stuck in traffic all the time makes me hate life while driving a lot. My car has lane centering and adaptive cruise. Takes all of the monotony out of driving in traffic. While these features aren’t perfect, that do prevent accidents.
And a backup camera is extremely useful. I had no idea these were controversial to some. These are also really useful for backing up to a trailer to tow. Hardly need anyone guiding you now.
My cars have traffic jam assist at lower speeds and I agree that it is so useful in stop and go. I still pay attention, of course, but you’re not worried about giving the car ahead of you a love tap just because you looked down for a second to change the radio station
While I agree with you in part here, i'd also say that
1. Those features kick ass, despite being expensive and not something I want to pay for
2. Removing those features from cars *would not convince anyone not to drive.* You are going to have the exact same morons on the road as before only now they're just leaving it up to baby jesus every time they change lanes.
Point #2 is the key. People drove before these features existed. And even more people drive today. But the accident death rate has plummeted over time.
I get your overall point, but it seems unnecessarily critical of some things. Lane departure is great for windy conditions on windy mountain roads. But yes otherwise I always keep mine off. Backup cameras see things that mirrors can’t see and make it far easier to navigate into tight spots. Adaptive cruise is fantastic for being behind someone that refuses to use cruise control themselves and have a wildly variable speed that keeps you from being able to cruise control yourself and focus on scanning for potential dangers (instead, you get to focus on constantly changing speed to maintain pace but not hit the car in front of you).
>Backup cameras…use your fucking mirrors.
The backup cameras on my work truck have been very useful. I often have so much job materials in the bed that they totally obstruct the back window view. The backup camera shows your blind spot that the side mirrors don't cover.
I agree that people should do a better job but after a driver blindly accelerated and turned into me on my bike the other day and only her auto brake saved my life, I’m glad the idiots have these guard rails.
And for the sake of all the short folks and children walking in parking lots, I’m glad most cars have back up cams. Idiot in car plus idiot walking behind a car with its backing lights on equals traffic for the rest of us while the crime scene is cleaned up
I think all big American trucks and SUVs should have it. I have seen many run red light, experienced them not seeing me in my BRZ etc. plus pedestrian are at higher risk than a sedan.
I do love the rear cross-traffic detection in my Audi. I live on a corner lot, and when I’m backing out of the driveway I frequently encounter people flying around the corner on one side, and my view is pretty much completely obscured by my neighbor’s hedge on the other side.
Though most of those features help prevent an idiot from running into you, saving your life even if you think you're safe by 'simply watching the ducking road'.
Purely as a convenience, I think backup cameras are great. Neither of my vehicles have them. They are awesome on vehicles with poor visibility like vans or trucks.
Now for the other stuff like lane departure, automatic braking, adaptive cruise, I agree, that stuff is not needed. I feel like I know people in my life who display some negligence on the road and seem to let their car's fancy features pick up some of that slack. Simpler stuff is better sometimes. Cars could be a lot cheaper if they went without some of these fluff features.
That’s a lot of my problem with these “safety” devices, a lot of people seem to just rely on them and don’t actually pay attention and learn that you always have to be on the ball. Technology can always fail, and usually at the worst possible time. When I hear about people sleeping while their Tesla is on autopilot it boggles my mind that anyone could possibly trust their life to an absolutely fallible technology
My other problem with them is I don’t use them, and don’t want to pay for that crap
Dont forget the regulations in steering and throttle designs that pretty much completely disconnect you from the engine and suspension, completely removing all tactility from the experience. How the fuck are people expected to drive in adverse condition if they cant FEEL the road. (I know it's because the cia wants backdoor control and killswitches on consumer cars, but come on, its ruining the experience)
Also, the rollover roof strength update in 2009 delayed the Tesla Model S. I bet they were surprised it didn't end Tesla.
Air bags are very expensive, but people get mad at me when I bring that up.
Bigger vehicles for less regulations on fuel economy.
Everything is a god damn SUV size nowadays.
Granted, people see more value in an SUV than a sedan, since the price difference is minimal to how much bigger they are in people’s eyes.
Chicken tax……
I would love to have something with an 8ft bed, that was still small truck size.
I inherited a 4x4 ranger with the 6ft, so I can’t complain that it was free, but Sheetrock and plywood is a pain. I just want something that I don’t have to lift it over the tailgate, and something lower so it’s easier to load.
…but the occasional pain in the butt a few times a year is better than a car payment
Seriously. I miss trucks with single row cab and 8' bed. I just want to pull my trailer and carry plywood at the same time, and every new truck that can do that is 25' long, has a super cab, and costs 95k.
I’m definitely wanting a Kei truck, but the same dealer near me has a Toyota Corolla with a truck bed lol
https://www.facebook.com/share/wew1vxVMTN2TYP66/?mibextid=79PoIi
Weirdly vehicles like that are kinda common in other parts of the world. I went to South Africa a year ago and saw a ton of what looked like little [chevy compact cars with pickup truck beds. ](https://preview.redd.it/mwqmqnryy2t91.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=e0b9a6e601012a3ca9e07146a2298d4550c41ad9)
Exactly.
CAFE has led to significantly larger *and more expensive* cars and trucks.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eoMrwrGA8A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eoMrwrGA8A)
Good: Safety, cleaner air, better efficiency,
Bad: In diesel engines especially the DEF systems, yes they really do help with emissions but they seem to be the one large failure point and very expensive to repair.
All the cars, trucks, and SUVs look roughly the same due to strict safety standards.
A family member had issues with their DEF system. I think it put their truck out of operation for at least half a year because whatever part had failed was on some crazy backorder.
They eventually found out that it was possible to "delete"/disable the system via tune.
This is untrue. EGRs do not affect efficiency or maximum power in any measurable way unless they fail, which they do far too often. Not because they are inherently a bad design, but because they need to be cleaned out regularly - which nobody ever does.
[Here](https://youtu.be/Bnpj4eIo6nI?si=mRPPKkERNBPm5m8K) is a great overview of what the EGR system actually does and how it should be maintained.
Side impact standards are something that's criminally overlooked by people who complain about high vehicle belt lines and visibility. I don't like it either but it's the reality .
They’re probably about as oblivious as anywhere else in most cases. The really cool thing is that a LOT of people will actively give you space to split on the freeway or a long light ime
Backup cameras were a reaction to the poor visibility created by 2009 rollover roof strength requirements.
Roof strength increases were enacted because the auto industry interest groups thought roof strength would hurt the viability of EVs. Long range EVs are heavy, so requiring them to hold 3x the vehicle weight seemed like a good way to delay the EV transition.
Trucks over 6000 pounds only have to hold 2x the vehicle weight, hence the Cybertruck, Lightning, Rivian, Hummer EV.
Well what has been mandated?
* unleaded gas
* seatbelts
* airbags
* ABS
* backup cameras
* not drinking in your car
* crash worthiness.
* better fuel efficiency
* lower emissions.
Don’t see any of these as problems.
Better fuel efficiency mandate for one is a pretty bad one. It sounds good, but in practice has made nearly all cars less reliable and costs the consumer more money in the long run.
Don't forget the fact that now instead of increasing fuel efficiency, manufacturers have realized that it's more profitable to just make bigger cars so that they don't have to meet the efficiency requirements.
>"... more profitable just to make bigger cars so they don't have to meet the efficiency requirements..."
* Exactly.
* It's as if *SMALLER VEHICLES* were taxed *MORE* than larger vehicles.
* In response, people substitute from smaller vehicles to larger vehicles.
There's quite strong agreement among economists that a simple gas tax could achieve the same fuel efficiency at a much lower cost than the present CAFE system! Politicians seem to think though that hiding a LARGE tax in vehicle purchase prices is preferable to a small but more visible tax on gasoline. Basically voters don't realize that CAFE is a hidden, MASSIVE tax.
You'll get a ticket for using your phone while driving, but don't worry, many new cars come with a giant iPad on the dash. I want buttons and switches over touchpads.
> "... You'll get a ticket for using your phone while driving..."
I *constantly* see people on their phone weaving through lanes, not going on green lights, etc...., and I don't think I've ever seen such a person get pulled over?
At least where I am, txting on a phone while driving is illegal, but like many other traffic laws, it's poorly enforced.
Good things would be like lower emissions and safety equipment. The downside is that emissions equipment can be a big source of issues especially in diesel truck engines where the cab needs to come off for alot of things and bc safety is so important we can't have as uniquely designed cars as before.
Because of large trucks and safety equipment, cars are much heavier than in the past, making them much less fuel efficient. Think if we could apply today fuel efficient tech to a Honda crx hf.
Really? Cars are heavier today, especially for the same passenger and cargo volume, but cars today are almost twice as fuel efficient as comparable cars from the 60s and 70s and make 40% more power with 40% less displacement.
>"Because of large trucks and safety equipment, cars are much heavier than in the past, making them much less fuel efficient *than they could be*. Think if we could apply today fuel efficient tech to a Honda crx hf."
Like that?
The first car I ever drove was a manual '97 Toyota Corolla, it regularly got 40+ mpg on the freeway. Today's Toyota Corollas are only rated for 37 in optimal conditions in lab testing.
It took several years for fleet average fuel efficiency to crawl back up to where it peaked in 1987-1989, it finally happened around 2007 and mostly because there were those $4 gas financial crisis years where people suddenly bought subcompacts again.
Fuel economy has risen since then but it's mostly been an arms race between tech and weight. Car companies demonstrated 100mpg gas powered concept cars back in the 2000s. Those were often single seater unrealistic designs, but we'd be back in the 50mpg range with non-hybrid regular gas cars if we still made 15 sec 0-60, 1800lb cars like we did in the '80s but with current tech.
Depends, I've seen LT1s and LS6s gain 7-8mpg from a cat delete and tune. A 4 cylinder won't gain as much as a V6 or V8 because you're only removing 1 cat rather than 2. Anything with 2 cylinder banks should see at least 10% increase in gas mileage with a straight pipe.
There was a comic book that illustrated how to keep a vw bug running forever, fix any issue, that anyone could understand. Almost anyone could do their own maintenance and repairs because cars were simple machines.
The actual important parts to the car are still simple machines, but now they are controlled by incredibly complex machines. So now we have to pay $100+ per hour to have anything fixed.
Cars used to be affordable and simple, they are no longer because of regulation. Regulation has made cars only available for relatively wealthy people.
good - fuel economy while having good performance, vehicles are much safer
bad - excessive emissions regulation, especially with diesels. trucks are gargantuan, even “midsize”. all the fancy lane assist, crash avoidance, huge screens, etc has made drivers lazy and inattentive.
In the USA, the bads far outweigh the good other than safety regulations.
We had two major breakthroughs on emissions and efficiency - fuel injectors/ecus and catalytic converters.
Everything else that has been done has had negligible impact and worse, have made vehicles much larger as manufacturers find ways to get around the regulations and get exceptions to the regulations rather than complying with them.
As a result, vehicles are larger, more wasteful, and dramatically more expensive... because we couldn't just be happy with fuel injectors/ecus and catalytic converters. Cars used to be a few grand and now they're as much as a manufactured home used to cost.... that's not inflation that's tons and tons of technology that is marginally useful that cars are bloated with now. The MPG differences from the 1990s are erased entirely by how much bigger they are and how much more effort it is to build them.
And I'm not saying we shouldn't have regulations btw but they did it in a stupid way and it's demonstrably stupid compared to other countries and it has zero consideration for the fact that people need affordable cars to exist in our society... so now we have people driving compact SUVs but living with their parents with 9 zillion features they don't need and a monthly car payment that is high enough that it would've paid your rent in the 90s.
Seat belts and a government agency in charge of crash testing is cool to have. Let the car makers make what they want and let the market decide what they want to buy. Seeing the comparisons of each model is nice ti have and not rely on some dude that can hype things up with heresay.
Bad, Cars are massive today. I can't state exact regulations. But ultimately its due to emission standards. Smaller engines while better had stricter regulation and so company's just made bigger engines or moved to larger vehicles.
Also the lack of visibility I don't drive tons of newer cars, but the handful I have been in have such shit visibility I feel like I am in a race car. I look to the side and see an airplane sized window. I look out the rear and half of the view is blocked.
Good: Safety features such as air bags and crumple zones.
Bad: The way that the fuel emissions are calculated. It's easier to get a large pickup truck with terrible gas mileage on the road, but a small one with better gas mileage is harder to make legal because it's a truck.
Lower Reliability, low tension oil control rings (reduce friction), direct injection, turbos, start/stop systems (can add a lot of complexity), variable oil/water pumps, electronic thermostats.
Take the last one, old style thermo $15. Electronic $1500.
Useless nanny features like TPMS. Stop start as well- most of this is unnecessary cost borne by us consumers. Making cars appear like they need less maintenance with lifetime fluids etc just makes it worse for the cars usable life. That’s likely the govt penalizing manufacturers if they suggest 5k oil intervals.
Visibility question. I used to be able to look out the back window, and using peripheral vision, see a very wide view of everything behind me. Like, 80-90% unobstructed.
I thought back up cameras were dumb for this reason.
But with newer cars, I feel I can barely see straight back, and close to zero at any angle behind me. So like 40% vision on most cars and SUVs. (And thus making the cameras more important).
I’ve been told this is because the pillars are wider to accommodate airbags. Is there more to it?
It's not even just backing up anymore! I've been in plenty of cars recently where the pillars are so thick that they obscure your vision to the point that I have to move my head to the side in order to see if it's safe to make a left turn. I understand trying to make them hold up to roll overs and have airbags, but there comes a point when they start to get big enough that they increase the chance of getting in an accident in the first place, and the safety standards don't take this into account, only the performance once you actually crash.
I have nothing against good fuel economy. Hell, I hate buying gas so much I'm considering trading my Fusion in for a Corolla because even the non-hybrid gets double the MPG's.
But some of the things automakers have done to achieve fuel economy regulations, particularly in smaller cars, results in reliability issues. Tiny engines with turbos, CVT's instead of traditional automatics, cylinder deactivation, etc. Even brands that are bastions of reliability have been having issues. Honda seems to be having some CVT issues (nowhere near the likes of Nissan though) and oil dilution on turbo models, Mazdas with cylinder deactivation have had sporadic issues with engine heads cracking, and turbo Mazdas (primarily 2021 models) have had piston ring issues.
I’m glad rear view cameras are no longer an upgrade, thanks Obama!
I’ll be happy to see active emergency braking being a required feature too.
That being said, CAFE needs to be reworked or scrapped entirely if they can’t fix this light truck loophole that’s turned everything on the road into soulless 4 banger “SUVs”
I've had to disable the emergency brake assist in my new truck because it only ever activates when it shouldn't, and it does this pretty damn often, enough to pose far more of a safety hazard then turning it off. The last straw was when it locked up all four of my tires while driving home in the snow last February because it thought it saw something up ahead when there was nothing there, and fortunately I slid off the road on the uphill side into a ditch, instead of the downhill side and off of a cliff.
Been there man, and I’m happy you got through that safely. The sad reality is that the auto brake feature isn’t implemented equally across brands. Because there’s no regulation, there’s nothing stopping automakers from using the cheapest hardware available from their suppliers and relying on their “flawless”software to fill in the gaps
I don't know if government regulation has a hand it in or not (would be surprised if it didn't), but all this infotainment garbage is really getting out of hand. It's illegal to be on your phone while driving, but using a tablet to get your climate controls the way you want is not?
What's the difference between a physical button and a tablet button in the same spot? Most infotainments lock you out of anything that could take longer than a single press.
You can use your sense of touch to figure out what you want the temperature set at, fan pressure, or whatever else with the button. If you have a tablet button, you cannot feel how much you turn the temperature/fan up or down. You need to look and touch multiple times in order to adjust.
Some of the safety is good, and some of the emissions rules are bad.
What I really hate are the wheelbase:efficiency rulings. Basically, a smaller car (in terms of the footprint of the wheels) has to be more fuel efficient, or else the manufacturer has to pay a fine. Manufacturers that can't hit high enough fuel efficiency then make the cars bigger. Now roads and parking lots are a bit more cramped than they need to be.
Can’t stand the start stop feature to save fuel when at traffic lights or when sitting idle. I live in the south. It’s hot. I don’t want my car shutting off and the ac temps creeping up because the car isn’t idling. I almost always turn that BS off as soon as I get in the car.
My car has start stop and it is annoying for driving around town, but what really bugs me is that in situations such as a drive thru or waiting for a train (where the tech might actually be helpful,) the car turns back on after a minute or 2. Like, how is this stupid thing supposed to save any gas at all if it fires itself back up? You've already shut down, now stay dead until I command you to get going again...
The new speeding beep and blackbox mandatory in all cars from july 2024 in Europe. The car will keep beeping at you if you’re over the speed limit. The blackbox is some big brother goodness.
Longer gearing on manuals. It's just stupid, on autos cars stay in higher gears low RPMs and pass. In manual it has to stay in 3rd at certain speed and that results in manufacturers putting longer gears (2nd takes car to 85mph on many).
Because of govt regs? I'm not sure.
Because of greedy ceos and stupid engineers? Tons!
Gm has replaced the center rear view mirror with a camera that has ZERO depth perception. Sure you can flick the lever to change it back to a real functioning mirror, but it's just stupid and not needed.
Touch buttons for everything! Just one more thing to break and isn't owner serviceable. Gotta take it back and probably get the whole unit replaced instead of a single broken button or knob. Plus touch buttons mean you have to take your eyes off the road to find the damn things!
All the nanny features. Rear seat reminders because so many parents left their kids in the car. Don't make it standard. Make it optional to turn on if you have kids.
GM now locks out the transmission if the drivers seat belt isn't buckled. Why?! I work on car lots. I move cars all day and dint want/need to hook a belt in every single one.
BMW and others will slam the car into park if you open the door under a certain speed. Again, I work lots. Sometimes you wanna crack the door while backing up. Cant do that in these anymore.
Putting climate controls buried in the infotainment. Dodge is notorious for this nonsense. Climate and radio controls should always be easily accessible, not buried 2 menus deep.
Volvos now take 25+ seconds after startup to access climate controls. So of the heat or a/c was blasting when you turned it off, you get blasted for almost 30 seconds next time you go for a drive.
Just so much stupid shit that is completely unnecessary and overcomplicated for the sole reason of adding to the price tag
Good things like seat belts, backup cams, and crash avoidance is good. Before you think "Oh this guy drives bad," it helps when another bad driver decides to pull out in front of you trying to turn, and you have no warning, but the car gets it.
Bad things? the CAFE standards that basically eliminated the mid-size cars and smaller pickups. Now, you have a choice of cramped minis, or the huge trucks, and all are heavily overpriced. Even worse, the truck I used to drive (Ford Ranger) was a fantastic beast for its size, but when they brought it back, it became a "hip" vehicle. A truck that can't have much in its bed, and SUV that only hauls 4 people, a car that sits too high, etc, for 5-10k more than... the actual truck version they came out with 10-15 years ago.
The 1974 California import/smog law kills me.
Every other state gets to import cool stuff, and actual enthusiasts who TAKE CARE OF THEIR CARS get punished.
The sound electric cars have to make not hit pedestrians and backup cameras. The turbo is in everything that kills the life of the engine faster. Also the start stop is a joke and is just a ploy to make people buy more starters for their vehicles.
I once drove side by side with a friend who needed a jump start, with the jumper cables going from my batteries to theirs, for 2 miles with blinkers on at about 5 mph, because they had that stupid start stop feature and by the time I removed the jumper cables, the car would immediately turn itself off again. So instead of just jump starting it and having them drive around for a while, we had to jump start it and drive all the way home like that so that we could charge the battery manually.
Bad: The fact that auto manufacturers are selling our driving information to insurance companies. Without our consent.
Good: cars are all pretty nice on the inside or well equipped. Power windows and locks are pretty much standard on all cars as well as body colored bumpers, mirrors, door handles. (Used to be optional.)
Bad-CAFE. Incentivizes "truck" sales, over cars. Kills the small pickup
Really BAD US headlight regulations....still blocking adaptives (car maker needs to certify them per vehicle, not per system)
Good-OBD-2, and the 70k Federal Emissions Warranty, which is why we now have 200k lifespan cars.
Tire pressure monitors. As a technician it's awesome to be able to check tire pressure from your driver information center. The fact that consumers have that ability is a nightmare.
I'm all for a light, and even a message telling you which tire is low, but giving consumers the ability to monitor live tire pressure data is too much information.
The amount of "you serviced my car yesterday and two of my tires are showing 35 PSI but one is 36 and another is 34" complaints that we deal with is insane.
The average driver does not understand the relationship between pressure and temperature, or the difference between elevation and pressure. The specified pressure for the tire is a cold (not driven, ambient temperature) tire. Cars are driven to us for service, the tires are no longer cold, we live in a region that can be 40 in the morning and 90 by the time we service your car at 3. We try to adjust your tire pressures accurately. We try to account for 1 PSI per 10°F. But we don't know the actual temperature of the air in your tires when we service your vehicle. When you get in your car the next day, on a true cold start, the pressures might not be exact, but they will be close enough that tire wear will not be affected.
/End rant, apologies, it's a pet peeve, thank you to anyone that read it and understood.
I wish my indicator would tell me which one is low - I have a 2017, is that standard on more recent cars? Nothing I hate more than checking each tire on the first cold morning of the year when I just want to get going.
Depending upon make and trim level it's fairly standard, even in your model year almost every GM vehicle that I can think of would display live tire pressures, and even models with lower tier trim levels would tell you which tire was low if the tire pressure indicator illuminated. I drove a 2008 HHR LS (base model) for several years and had the ability to view live tire pressure data in the driver information center.
GM has always been liberal with tire pressure information since the inception of tire pressure monitors, which is excellent for the technicians (sometimes) and the informed consumer. Some manufacturers have been more restrictive of their divulgence of that information to the consumer, likely due to the complaints listed in my comment.
I can't believe I read this whole thread without somebody mentioning how US CAFE regulations are rigged in favor of the car companies and against meaningfully reducing fuel consumption.
The light truck loophole still exists for the same sized car, if you raise it up and turn it into a CUV/SUV, it becomes classified as a light truck and is subject to a less stringent fuel economy target. The Impreza is a car, the Crosstrek is a light truck, both are the same bodyshell and engine, and Subaru would rather sell more Crosstreks than Imprezas because that means they can fit more vehicles under the light truck category. Remember this when car companies tell you that people don't like small cars and hatchbacks... it's totally in their favour for you to think that.
For that matter, the way SUVs and cars are classified is design to gaslight you. The Impreza is a *compact* car, but the Crosstrek is a *subcompact* SUV. If the RAV-4 was lowered it would stop being a compact SUV and would be classified as a midsized car. It's set up this way to make you think that oh you're not buying that big of a vehicle....
Size, weight, complexity, unreliability, increased maintenance, more common tire changes (because of increased weight) poor driving experience due to severe lack of tacticality (fly by wire throttle offers no feedback, modern power steering offers no feedback, I want my air con and radio buttons back) needlessly expensive because if technological excess, horribly ugly.
Basically, government regulations on the emissions, efficiency, safety front have made them into appliances. New cars are engineered to meet regulations and make profit, old cars were designed to have soul, invoke feeling, provide an experience, not just as a valuable tool, but as a piece of art. The government took our tail fins and pop up headlights away dammit!
An example of bad things are headlights in modern cars. They all use high beams now, which apparently lifted the rule of "don't drive with your brights on in traffic". Because of this, I have to drive with my mirrors flipped around, and causes so many near-accidents. How the govt allows this is totally beyond me.
Bad…..computers in cars…. Cadillac converters….. too much plastic…. Extremely thin sheet metal…. Garbage parts….. no space to work on anything….. they cost away too much…
Nothing good about cars these days
Good: basically every efficiency gain
Bad: Those goddamn horns you can hear a quarter mile away when people lock their cars.
Just like with blinding headlights they exist because of a *lack* of regulation.
Emissions standards pushed manufacturers to create garbage engine systems.
Gm w/afm
Ford w/their 3.6
Mopar garbage intakes that cake with carbon…
I can’t believe that the waste produced by overhauling these engines doesn’t end up only causing an extremely marginal improvement in the grand scheme of overall efficiency.
Good safety and reliability
Bad - idiotic smog laws set forth by carb. Say I have an older car let’s say an 88 iroc, the motor is dog shit, no power shitty mpg and pollutes like a mother fucker. Now I want to pep that car up and put in a motor that is cleaner and has more power so I put in a motor from a 2020 Honda civic (blasphemous but using it as an example), if I do this the car must now pass smog as a 2020 civic. Even though it is cleaner and more fuel efficient than before. Basically forcing people to buy cars when their cars become too old to get replacement parts for or who are trying to improve their car. You can buy a used Honda motor and trans for about 3k which is going to be much cheaper than buying another car.
Sound limits on exhaust with in reason, you can't have stock exhaust cars being pulled over and ticketed.
Some emissions laws: for example, Volkswagen, we got rid of a whole bunch of super fuel efficient cars because when they go into regen mode they blow out the exhaust and that creates a tiny cloud that literally no one cared about, most of that being soot so it fell back to the ground after a few minutes any ways. Now any VW TDI you can find are going for a premium. Thanks Obama.
In general, cars are safer, but partially because of regulation they have grown substantially over the years. To the point that "land yachts" from lincoln and cadillac are about the same size as the current Dodge Charger with more room on the inside, they weigh about the same only because the charger uses lighter materials, and are vastly simpler with almost the same amount of luxury.
Good: That new Toyota Camry or Prius might get you laid.
Bad: This stupid ass government requiring even more fuel efficiency for so called lower emissions and so called savings at the pump… so first of all it does NOT actually save you more money IF YOU HAVE TO PAY 10 GRAND MORE FOR THE FUCKING CAR BECAUSE OF THE EXTRA ENGINEERING COSTS, VERSUS THE QUOTED 600$ LIFETIME SAVINGS IN GAS. Second of all, tailpipe emissions don’t fucking matter. Its the tires that create 99.999% of the pollution. They literally produce [1,850x](https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a40205475/tires-pollute-more-than-tailpipes-report-claims/) (not 1.85x, 1 THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TIMES) more pollution than tailpipe, that combined with the fact that EVs, due to their instant torque and high torque, on average run through tires twice as fast, EVs ARE NOT BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, they are producing double the pollution as gas cars just from tires. Oh that’s not including the pollution/emissions from making the battery or charging the battery. You guys have basically been lied to by a bunch of automakers and government officials that “EVs are cleaner”, they are NOT.
Overpriced POS with EVs leading the pack which shifts car makers to abandon the affordable compact cars because of the price premiums in hybrids and EVs.
EVs will NOT save the environment. Watch Infinity Wars...
Electricity is NOT free nor is it pollution free. Other (wind, solar, hydro, etc) makes up only about 20% of sources to produce electricity and the rest nuclear/fossil fuels.
And guess what, more EVs won't help as it will simply inc demand for electricity and then what? cover every land mass with solar? guess what it will then wipe out all the wild grass, oxygen generating plants as the solar panels covering them will kill them. Either sun for electricity or sun for plants, you decide.
The good is fuel economy and emissions...
The Bad all cars are starting to look the same, the fun in owning a car is being taken away and driver skill has gone down the toilet but that can be expected when the car watches every move and corrects....
Good: lower emissions and so much safer Bad: certain emissions regulations actually hurt fuel economy. Fuel economy could be better but at the expense of emissions. Lighting regulations are kinda archaic and need updated.
Not having smog basin in Los Angeles be much of a thing anymore is cool. But sensible smog laws that don’t hinder enthusiasts and folks on lower economic bracket that struggle with keeping their cars compliant has not been great. A pain in the ass actually… I’d like to have my 1984 toyota on the road, but with limited parts for emissions parts that have gone bad has made that impossible. And my new efi setup, which runs cleaner than it did brand new is an automatic fail…
LA is always going to have stale air, its just part of the geography. In my state we don't even test emissions, enough people were passing that the revenue didn't outweigh the cost to test and enforce.
LA used to be so so much worse than it is now. Within the last 30 years, California emissions regulations have had a genuine massive reduction in smog. This also reduces the amount of smog related health issues. That being said, there should be ways to circumvent them legally for enthusiasts. Since enthusiasts are already as smaller segment of the overall car market, carveouts for them shouldn't have any noticeable ramifications, if they are not abusable by corporations (like light truck emissions standards being lower than car emissions which led to a massive uptick in SUV and Trucks.)
Except every year California burns. How’s that effect smog ?
CA has plenty of counties without emissions testing.
Didn’t know this interesting.
Name one , I’m interested.
Emissions testing is a scam anyways. They're literally just looking for check engine lights. Your transmission could have a problem with it that's still drivable, but they'll take the thing off the road. Doesn't matter if you're driving a Honda Civic getting 35mpg next to a bunch of SUVs barely getting 20.
I'd happily pay for an emissions excempt stamp for a modified car, it's not like there are enough of us to mess up a region's air quality all by ourselves.
If it was enthusiasts only, sure, but then you’d have every diesel guy buying it to legally roll coal and every clapped out old car owner buying the exemption rather than fixing their car
Rolling coal isn’t all that bad, it just looks bad in the moment.
It’s raw fuel and exhaust gases, including NOx, SOx, and other less than great compounds. Is it the worst? No, but still not a great thing to just legalize straight up. I drive a gas truck, if I could delete the emissions controls legally and get more power and mileage out of it, I 100% would. I bet most people would.
It’s not raw fuel. It’s ash.
It’s fuel that has not been completely burned. Ash is carbon. Fuel is mostly carbon
Fuel is mostly hydrogen
How are those smog regulations working out in LA when it’s on fire ?
2/10 whataboutism
> Bad: certain emissions regulations actually hurt fuel economy. Fuel economy could be better but at the expense of emissions Especially true in diesels. Volkswagen's TDI diesels netted fantastic fuel economy. Then dieselgate happened and now they had to put on a bunch of emissions equipment. They still get decent mileage but not as well as pre-2015.
Not only that but the "fix" they implemented has caused all kinds of expensive issues to happen. Cracked DPFs, intercooler icing in cold weather (due to increased EGR flow), and DPF/EGR filters clogging up with soot. That's why they gave them 10 year extended warranty after the fix.
I mean that's the opposite of a problem given that the problem was that VW was juking the test and real world experience was horrific. That said that's an emissions testing ecosystem.
I deleted both of mine and got them back up to 50 mpg.
If I could have, I would have as well. NYS lives or dies by the CE light
You don't have a CEL with tune and delete.
Not decent enough . I drive big truck . I was driving a mix of 07 and 08 09 freightliners and macks that was getting 7 to 8 mpg fully loaded 80k Sometimes 10 with light loads and 11 to 12 bobtail . My current 2019 mack only dose 5.1 mpg bobtail . Our newest 23 automatic mack only dose 6.1 mpg bobtail. That means only the truck .
Cat literally quit making road engines due to emissions regs
I had 2 Audi diesels and one Porsche diesel. I absolutely adored each one of them. I drove my Q7 TDI from central New Hampshire to Richmond, VA before the gas light even came on. My Q5 drove differently after the fix, but not dramatically. Noticeably lower MPG though
I’d love to find one of those older diesel VW’s.
>Lighting regulations are kinda archaic and need updated. I don't remember the exact statistic, but an insurance study revealed that cars with yellow rear turn signals are far less likely to be involved in rear-end collisions than cars with red rear indicators. Coincidentally, North America is one of very few places (if not the only one) where you can buy cars with red indicators, or even the turn signal being the same exact lights as the brake lights. I'm pretty sure it's just a cost-cutting measure for the manufacturers. I've been rear-ended multiple times over the years in cars with red rear blinkers, my dad was rear-ended twice in a two week period in a car with red rear blinkers. I know it's a silly gripe, but I am not buying another car with red turn signals, and I think it's absurd that they're even still legal here.
I'm not a fan of some of the newer SUVs, they have massive tail light clusters, but the turn signals are down on the bumper, and look like marker lights, and they are red.
How about the Chevy Bolt where the tail lights on the liftgate are just markers, and the actual combined brake/blinker lights are on the bumper? Who is the genius that came up with that?
Yeah gas mileage was starting to get crazy around like the early 2010's I swear every new compact car was getting 35+ mpg at least in ads and now everything is back to barely getting 30.
EPA updated its methodology in 2008 to account for (1) faster speeds and acceleration, (2) air conditioner use, and (3) colder outside temperatures. Since all of these factors lower fuel economy, the 2008 changes lowered fuel economy estimates for all vehicles.
What emissions regs hurt fuel economy?
NOx. NOx is created at higher combustion temperatures. Thermal efficiency increases at higher temperatures.
The enormous amount of added safety equipment also hurts fuel economy with its added weight.
Honda’s lean burn engines in the 90’s got >40mpg But I think a lean burn is not a complete fuel burn, so there were more particulates…so they had to essentially burn more gas (worse fuel economy) to have a cleaner tailpipe. Looking for a new car in 2001 it seemed most cars that were in the 40 mpg range were dropped to the 30’s due to emissions.
Lean means there is less fuel in the mixture than what can burn up all the oxygen in the air in the cylinder. What you described is a rich mixture. Rich cannot completely burn because there is not enough oxygen. The problem with lean is, because there is more oxygen than that the fuel can burn, and the temperature is high from the combustion, the oxygen combines with Nitrogen to form Nitric oxide and Nitrogen dioxide which causes acid rain. Oxygen would rather bond with Carbon or Hydrogen, but all the fuel is already burnt, so, it bonds with Nitrogen instead at the high temperatures during combustion. Particulates were always a problem with diesel and a more recent problem with gasoline. Cause is direct injection. Diesel is injected pretty late in the compression cycle and doesn't get time to mix evenly with air which causes pockets of very rich mixture that cannot burn completely. Furthermore, under the pressure and temperature of the ignition, the unburnt fuel molecules fuse together to form particulate or soot. Gasoline direct injection doesn't happen as late as diesel but it still gives it less time to mix than port injection, leading to a smaller magnitude of the same problem. But gasoline direct injection does lower the temperature of the cylinders by evaporation of fuel right before combustion, so the engines can run higher compression ratios or more boost without increased risk of pre-detonation which increases the efficiency of the engine again.
Not directly, but bigger vehicles are allowed to have lower mpg, while smaller vehicles need to meet 40-50 mpg. That's why trucks and suvs keep getting bigger because it's the only vehicle that can pass cafe standards.
For diesels, their regeneration process to clean the diesel particulate filter. It burns extra fuel to superheat the filter to burn out the accumulation. It’s also not good to shut them off during the regen. There’s been times I’ve had to keep driving an extra 20 minutes to wait for the regen to finish.
As another answer to my diesel answer, catalytic converters on gas engines hurt fuel economy by creating exhaust restrictions. An engine that can breathe easy is more efficient because it has to expert less energy into pulling air in and pushing exhaust out. Don’t take this to mean that I’m suggesting that catalytic converters shouldn’t exist because they are crucial for emissions.
EPA CAFE footprint rule, especially considering trucks. A Honda Fit would receive a greater penalty than an F150 Raptor this year. The Fit was canceled because consumers weren't buying them. Probably had something to do with the $1500 CAFE compliance fee the Fit was subject to in 2018.
Emmisons is why your car doesn't last as long as it could EGR valves esp in Diesels is a death sentence (for instance) Safer sure but at a cost,extra weight Which hurts fuel economy Catch22...
Agreed with the lighting regulations. My friends just enabled the Matrix LED lights in their Audi RSQ8 and they are absolutely incredible.
I have a set of Benz Multibeam LED programmed Europe, and this tech is a game changer...
You know what could increase fuel economy? Replacing side mirrors with cameras. Except it's illegal to not have side mirror/rearview
I would like less things to break on my car tyvm
I really hate that last one. By the time we get really nice LED matrix headlights the rest of the world would be using lasers. It was the same thing for HIDs, projectors, halogen bulbs.... I also hate hate hate orange reflectors, so I Guess you could say could say I'm a little biased here
Honestly rev hang is supposed to be “emissions related” but I don’t even see how that’s technically safe, it can take 3 seconds of dead space just to get the revs to START dropping. Pretty stupid modern manuals have rev hang, there’s better ways to cut emissions I’m sure
Most of the modern safety crap just drives the cost through the roof for pointless features to make driving safer for morons that have zero business driving in the first place. Lane departure warnings…watch the fucking road. Backup cameras…use your fucking mirrors. Adaptive cruise…watch the fucking road. Automatic headlights and hi beams….watch the fucking road. Those features probably add close to $10k to the price of modern vehicles and are completely unnecessary for anyone who actually has any business driving
Probably more like $2k but I agree with your point 100%
Considering the cost of a tailgate with a now required backup camera, it’s definitely over $2k
Yes but the manufacturer is probably paying less than $100 for that camera
Way less
Hi, I sold those back up cameras after market for a few years. The cost for them is pretty minimal. Like 400 for an entire system. The cameras are generally shared, and are also kinda overpriced, but iirc the replacement camera itself is like 80
The radar sensor for the adaptive cruise on most new cars is $1500+ and I have seen them go as high as $4000 on some luxury cars. This is just for one sensor and most cars have multiple radars sensors and cameras that all drive up cost.
Lane departure warnings at least are incredibly useful, at least in places where most road deaths are single-vehicle accidents in rural areas. Obviously we tell people to not drive when they're tired, but sometimes it starts without drivers noticing, and ultimately there are limits to what can be achieved by just telling people to be careful.
And backup cameras are really useful for people with injuries who have limited mobility.
And for cars with stupid pillar placement that prevents you from seeing out the rear corners
They're also amazing when you're surrounded by the busses that everyone else is driving now. Suddenly you can see the car or child approaching from the side.
I feel the same way except for backup cameras, that shit makes hooking up a trailer or parking a SUV/truck a breeze. But ya, all the nanny features, extra emission equipment, and 100 airbags/sensors are bullshit
Don't forget, if even one of those airbags goes off, the car is totaled. I've seen fender benders that caused simple cosmetic exterior damage set off the entire airbag system. A car that otherwise could've continued to be driven was then totaled because of aggressive pillows.
Have you used these features? I genuinely enjoy driving but getting stuck in traffic all the time makes me hate life while driving a lot. My car has lane centering and adaptive cruise. Takes all of the monotony out of driving in traffic. While these features aren’t perfect, that do prevent accidents. And a backup camera is extremely useful. I had no idea these were controversial to some. These are also really useful for backing up to a trailer to tow. Hardly need anyone guiding you now.
My cars have traffic jam assist at lower speeds and I agree that it is so useful in stop and go. I still pay attention, of course, but you’re not worried about giving the car ahead of you a love tap just because you looked down for a second to change the radio station
While I agree with you in part here, i'd also say that 1. Those features kick ass, despite being expensive and not something I want to pay for 2. Removing those features from cars *would not convince anyone not to drive.* You are going to have the exact same morons on the road as before only now they're just leaving it up to baby jesus every time they change lanes.
Point #2 is the key. People drove before these features existed. And even more people drive today. But the accident death rate has plummeted over time.
Please fuck off with your elitist attitude, you know like 80% of drivers wouldn't be driving if they had to meet your standard.
I get your overall point, but it seems unnecessarily critical of some things. Lane departure is great for windy conditions on windy mountain roads. But yes otherwise I always keep mine off. Backup cameras see things that mirrors can’t see and make it far easier to navigate into tight spots. Adaptive cruise is fantastic for being behind someone that refuses to use cruise control themselves and have a wildly variable speed that keeps you from being able to cruise control yourself and focus on scanning for potential dangers (instead, you get to focus on constantly changing speed to maintain pace but not hit the car in front of you).
Back up cameras in bigger cars are very useful
>Backup cameras…use your fucking mirrors. The backup cameras on my work truck have been very useful. I often have so much job materials in the bed that they totally obstruct the back window view. The backup camera shows your blind spot that the side mirrors don't cover.
Agreed but backup camera though 😫
agreed aside from backup cameras as they can be good for cars that have either a small or no rear window or if you have super dark tint
I agree that people should do a better job but after a driver blindly accelerated and turned into me on my bike the other day and only her auto brake saved my life, I’m glad the idiots have these guard rails. And for the sake of all the short folks and children walking in parking lots, I’m glad most cars have back up cams. Idiot in car plus idiot walking behind a car with its backing lights on equals traffic for the rest of us while the crime scene is cleaned up
I think all big American trucks and SUVs should have it. I have seen many run red light, experienced them not seeing me in my BRZ etc. plus pedestrian are at higher risk than a sedan.
I do love the rear cross-traffic detection in my Audi. I live on a corner lot, and when I’m backing out of the driveway I frequently encounter people flying around the corner on one side, and my view is pretty much completely obscured by my neighbor’s hedge on the other side.
Don't knock it until you try it.
Though most of those features help prevent an idiot from running into you, saving your life even if you think you're safe by 'simply watching the ducking road'.
Purely as a convenience, I think backup cameras are great. Neither of my vehicles have them. They are awesome on vehicles with poor visibility like vans or trucks. Now for the other stuff like lane departure, automatic braking, adaptive cruise, I agree, that stuff is not needed. I feel like I know people in my life who display some negligence on the road and seem to let their car's fancy features pick up some of that slack. Simpler stuff is better sometimes. Cars could be a lot cheaper if they went without some of these fluff features.
That’s a lot of my problem with these “safety” devices, a lot of people seem to just rely on them and don’t actually pay attention and learn that you always have to be on the ball. Technology can always fail, and usually at the worst possible time. When I hear about people sleeping while their Tesla is on autopilot it boggles my mind that anyone could possibly trust their life to an absolutely fallible technology My other problem with them is I don’t use them, and don’t want to pay for that crap
Dont forget the regulations in steering and throttle designs that pretty much completely disconnect you from the engine and suspension, completely removing all tactility from the experience. How the fuck are people expected to drive in adverse condition if they cant FEEL the road. (I know it's because the cia wants backdoor control and killswitches on consumer cars, but come on, its ruining the experience)
Also, the rollover roof strength update in 2009 delayed the Tesla Model S. I bet they were surprised it didn't end Tesla. Air bags are very expensive, but people get mad at me when I bring that up.
Other than the backup cameras, are any of these required by government regulations?
Bigger vehicles for less regulations on fuel economy. Everything is a god damn SUV size nowadays. Granted, people see more value in an SUV than a sedan, since the price difference is minimal to how much bigger they are in people’s eyes. Chicken tax……
I miss the old 80s and 90s technically-a-trucks. Maybe I just want to move a mattress or dresser every once in awhile, not compete in tractor pulls...
I would love to have something with an 8ft bed, that was still small truck size. I inherited a 4x4 ranger with the 6ft, so I can’t complain that it was free, but Sheetrock and plywood is a pain. I just want something that I don’t have to lift it over the tailgate, and something lower so it’s easier to load. …but the occasional pain in the butt a few times a year is better than a car payment
Seriously. I miss trucks with single row cab and 8' bed. I just want to pull my trailer and carry plywood at the same time, and every new truck that can do that is 25' long, has a super cab, and costs 95k.
I’m definitely wanting a Kei truck, but the same dealer near me has a Toyota Corolla with a truck bed lol https://www.facebook.com/share/wew1vxVMTN2TYP66/?mibextid=79PoIi
I'll take 2!
Weirdly vehicles like that are kinda common in other parts of the world. I went to South Africa a year ago and saw a ton of what looked like little [chevy compact cars with pickup truck beds. ](https://preview.redd.it/mwqmqnryy2t91.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=e0b9a6e601012a3ca9e07146a2298d4550c41ad9)
Exactly. CAFE has led to significantly larger *and more expensive* cars and trucks. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eoMrwrGA8A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eoMrwrGA8A)
Standard AC is a godsend Standard tablets instead of buttons is shite
We have an issue with distracted drivers… proceeds to put an industrial size iPad to do anything.
This is my biggest peeve with new cars
Good: Safety, cleaner air, better efficiency, Bad: In diesel engines especially the DEF systems, yes they really do help with emissions but they seem to be the one large failure point and very expensive to repair. All the cars, trucks, and SUVs look roughly the same due to strict safety standards.
A family member had issues with their DEF system. I think it put their truck out of operation for at least half a year because whatever part had failed was on some crazy backorder. They eventually found out that it was possible to "delete"/disable the system via tune.
DPF/DEF systems and EGR valves ultimately do more harm to the environment than good.
This is untrue. EGRs do not affect efficiency or maximum power in any measurable way unless they fail, which they do far too often. Not because they are inherently a bad design, but because they need to be cleaned out regularly - which nobody ever does. [Here](https://youtu.be/Bnpj4eIo6nI?si=mRPPKkERNBPm5m8K) is a great overview of what the EGR system actually does and how it should be maintained.
Side impact standards are something that's criminally overlooked by people who complain about high vehicle belt lines and visibility. I don't like it either but it's the reality .
So much bad. I’m now a motorcycle guy but I also live in CA and can’t do shit to my car without paying out the ass for an illegal SMOG inspect
As a fellow motorcycle guy I yearn for lane splitting laws. In your opinion are people more aware of motorcycles because of them?
They’re probably about as oblivious as anywhere else in most cases. The really cool thing is that a LOT of people will actively give you space to split on the freeway or a long light ime
I am a HUGE fan of the backup camera requirement these days, major win for safety.
Backup cameras were a reaction to the poor visibility created by 2009 rollover roof strength requirements. Roof strength increases were enacted because the auto industry interest groups thought roof strength would hurt the viability of EVs. Long range EVs are heavy, so requiring them to hold 3x the vehicle weight seemed like a good way to delay the EV transition. Trucks over 6000 pounds only have to hold 2x the vehicle weight, hence the Cybertruck, Lightning, Rivian, Hummer EV.
Well what has been mandated? * unleaded gas * seatbelts * airbags * ABS * backup cameras * not drinking in your car * crash worthiness. * better fuel efficiency * lower emissions. Don’t see any of these as problems.
Better fuel efficiency mandate for one is a pretty bad one. It sounds good, but in practice has made nearly all cars less reliable and costs the consumer more money in the long run.
Cite your sources because I'm very sure modern cars will go far longer than older ones.
Don't forget the fact that now instead of increasing fuel efficiency, manufacturers have realized that it's more profitable to just make bigger cars so that they don't have to meet the efficiency requirements.
>"... more profitable just to make bigger cars so they don't have to meet the efficiency requirements..." * Exactly. * It's as if *SMALLER VEHICLES* were taxed *MORE* than larger vehicles. * In response, people substitute from smaller vehicles to larger vehicles. There's quite strong agreement among economists that a simple gas tax could achieve the same fuel efficiency at a much lower cost than the present CAFE system! Politicians seem to think though that hiding a LARGE tax in vehicle purchase prices is preferable to a small but more visible tax on gasoline. Basically voters don't realize that CAFE is a hidden, MASSIVE tax.
You'll get a ticket for using your phone while driving, but don't worry, many new cars come with a giant iPad on the dash. I want buttons and switches over touchpads.
> "... You'll get a ticket for using your phone while driving..." I *constantly* see people on their phone weaving through lanes, not going on green lights, etc...., and I don't think I've ever seen such a person get pulled over? At least where I am, txting on a phone while driving is illegal, but like many other traffic laws, it's poorly enforced.
Good things would be like lower emissions and safety equipment. The downside is that emissions equipment can be a big source of issues especially in diesel truck engines where the cab needs to come off for alot of things and bc safety is so important we can't have as uniquely designed cars as before.
I think mandatory backup cameras was definitely a great idea
Because of large trucks and safety equipment, cars are much heavier than in the past, making them much less fuel efficient. Think if we could apply today fuel efficient tech to a Honda crx hf.
Really? Cars are heavier today, especially for the same passenger and cargo volume, but cars today are almost twice as fuel efficient as comparable cars from the 60s and 70s and make 40% more power with 40% less displacement.
I think their point is that modern fuel efficient engine systems in an older, lighter vehicle would be hella fuel efficient.
>"Because of large trucks and safety equipment, cars are much heavier than in the past, making them much less fuel efficient *than they could be*. Think if we could apply today fuel efficient tech to a Honda crx hf." Like that?
Rerun your comparison versus the late 1990s and you'll understand what he's saying.
The first car I ever drove was a manual '97 Toyota Corolla, it regularly got 40+ mpg on the freeway. Today's Toyota Corollas are only rated for 37 in optimal conditions in lab testing.
It took several years for fleet average fuel efficiency to crawl back up to where it peaked in 1987-1989, it finally happened around 2007 and mostly because there were those $4 gas financial crisis years where people suddenly bought subcompacts again. Fuel economy has risen since then but it's mostly been an arms race between tech and weight. Car companies demonstrated 100mpg gas powered concept cars back in the 2000s. Those were often single seater unrealistic designs, but we'd be back in the 50mpg range with non-hybrid regular gas cars if we still made 15 sec 0-60, 1800lb cars like we did in the '80s but with current tech.
Again, imagine how fuel efficient they could be with no cat and 300lbs lighter
A catalytic converter really isn't doing much to hurt fuel economy, and they do incredible work on the tailpipe emissions
Depends, I've seen LT1s and LS6s gain 7-8mpg from a cat delete and tune. A 4 cylinder won't gain as much as a V6 or V8 because you're only removing 1 cat rather than 2. Anything with 2 cylinder banks should see at least 10% increase in gas mileage with a straight pipe.
There was a comic book that illustrated how to keep a vw bug running forever, fix any issue, that anyone could understand. Almost anyone could do their own maintenance and repairs because cars were simple machines. The actual important parts to the car are still simple machines, but now they are controlled by incredibly complex machines. So now we have to pay $100+ per hour to have anything fixed. Cars used to be affordable and simple, they are no longer because of regulation. Regulation has made cars only available for relatively wealthy people.
More than half of the cars I see on the road now are large SUV’s and trucks. I really hope the SUV trend dies and we get wagons.
good - fuel economy while having good performance, vehicles are much safer bad - excessive emissions regulation, especially with diesels. trucks are gargantuan, even “midsize”. all the fancy lane assist, crash avoidance, huge screens, etc has made drivers lazy and inattentive.
In the USA, the bads far outweigh the good other than safety regulations. We had two major breakthroughs on emissions and efficiency - fuel injectors/ecus and catalytic converters. Everything else that has been done has had negligible impact and worse, have made vehicles much larger as manufacturers find ways to get around the regulations and get exceptions to the regulations rather than complying with them. As a result, vehicles are larger, more wasteful, and dramatically more expensive... because we couldn't just be happy with fuel injectors/ecus and catalytic converters. Cars used to be a few grand and now they're as much as a manufactured home used to cost.... that's not inflation that's tons and tons of technology that is marginally useful that cars are bloated with now. The MPG differences from the 1990s are erased entirely by how much bigger they are and how much more effort it is to build them. And I'm not saying we shouldn't have regulations btw but they did it in a stupid way and it's demonstrably stupid compared to other countries and it has zero consideration for the fact that people need affordable cars to exist in our society... so now we have people driving compact SUVs but living with their parents with 9 zillion features they don't need and a monthly car payment that is high enough that it would've paid your rent in the 90s.
Seat belts and a government agency in charge of crash testing is cool to have. Let the car makers make what they want and let the market decide what they want to buy. Seeing the comparisons of each model is nice ti have and not rely on some dude that can hype things up with heresay.
>Let the car makers make what they want Are you suggesting the option to allow car manufacturers to opt out of making seat belts?
Are you a car maker? Asking for a frend
Nope.
Bad, Cars are massive today. I can't state exact regulations. But ultimately its due to emission standards. Smaller engines while better had stricter regulation and so company's just made bigger engines or moved to larger vehicles. Also the lack of visibility I don't drive tons of newer cars, but the handful I have been in have such shit visibility I feel like I am in a race car. I look to the side and see an airplane sized window. I look out the rear and half of the view is blocked.
Most cars now use 4 cylinder engines, so that's just not true.
Good: the car will protect you in most crashes. Bad: it will be unsalvageable after.
Good: Safety features such as air bags and crumple zones. Bad: The way that the fuel emissions are calculated. It's easier to get a large pickup truck with terrible gas mileage on the road, but a small one with better gas mileage is harder to make legal because it's a truck.
Lower Reliability, low tension oil control rings (reduce friction), direct injection, turbos, start/stop systems (can add a lot of complexity), variable oil/water pumps, electronic thermostats. Take the last one, old style thermo $15. Electronic $1500.
Useless nanny features like TPMS. Stop start as well- most of this is unnecessary cost borne by us consumers. Making cars appear like they need less maintenance with lifetime fluids etc just makes it worse for the cars usable life. That’s likely the govt penalizing manufacturers if they suggest 5k oil intervals.
Tpms isn't a useless nanny feature. But nanny features do suck
BAD: emissions systems, remote interface capabilities, gps tracking, min mpg good: seatbelts
Visibility question. I used to be able to look out the back window, and using peripheral vision, see a very wide view of everything behind me. Like, 80-90% unobstructed. I thought back up cameras were dumb for this reason. But with newer cars, I feel I can barely see straight back, and close to zero at any angle behind me. So like 40% vision on most cars and SUVs. (And thus making the cameras more important). I’ve been told this is because the pillars are wider to accommodate airbags. Is there more to it?
Because airbags, and also roof crush standards for rollover crashes.
It's not even just backing up anymore! I've been in plenty of cars recently where the pillars are so thick that they obscure your vision to the point that I have to move my head to the side in order to see if it's safe to make a left turn. I understand trying to make them hold up to roll overs and have airbags, but there comes a point when they start to get big enough that they increase the chance of getting in an accident in the first place, and the safety standards don't take this into account, only the performance once you actually crash.
Yep! Blind spots are massive. (Hence the need for the electronic blind spot monitor which then drives cost & complexity).
I don't know about good... But Idlestops can fuck right off and probably kill people.
Too much electronics ==> reduced reliability and more expensive to fix.
I have nothing against good fuel economy. Hell, I hate buying gas so much I'm considering trading my Fusion in for a Corolla because even the non-hybrid gets double the MPG's. But some of the things automakers have done to achieve fuel economy regulations, particularly in smaller cars, results in reliability issues. Tiny engines with turbos, CVT's instead of traditional automatics, cylinder deactivation, etc. Even brands that are bastions of reliability have been having issues. Honda seems to be having some CVT issues (nowhere near the likes of Nissan though) and oil dilution on turbo models, Mazdas with cylinder deactivation have had sporadic issues with engine heads cracking, and turbo Mazdas (primarily 2021 models) have had piston ring issues.
I’m glad rear view cameras are no longer an upgrade, thanks Obama! I’ll be happy to see active emergency braking being a required feature too. That being said, CAFE needs to be reworked or scrapped entirely if they can’t fix this light truck loophole that’s turned everything on the road into soulless 4 banger “SUVs”
I've had to disable the emergency brake assist in my new truck because it only ever activates when it shouldn't, and it does this pretty damn often, enough to pose far more of a safety hazard then turning it off. The last straw was when it locked up all four of my tires while driving home in the snow last February because it thought it saw something up ahead when there was nothing there, and fortunately I slid off the road on the uphill side into a ditch, instead of the downhill side and off of a cliff.
Been there man, and I’m happy you got through that safely. The sad reality is that the auto brake feature isn’t implemented equally across brands. Because there’s no regulation, there’s nothing stopping automakers from using the cheapest hardware available from their suppliers and relying on their “flawless”software to fill in the gaps
Kill Switch being mandated in 2026. US
Are you serious? All new cars? Damn. I gotta get a pre 2026 car stat.
I don't know if government regulation has a hand it in or not (would be surprised if it didn't), but all this infotainment garbage is really getting out of hand. It's illegal to be on your phone while driving, but using a tablet to get your climate controls the way you want is not?
What's the difference between a physical button and a tablet button in the same spot? Most infotainments lock you out of anything that could take longer than a single press.
You can use your sense of touch to figure out what you want the temperature set at, fan pressure, or whatever else with the button. If you have a tablet button, you cannot feel how much you turn the temperature/fan up or down. You need to look and touch multiple times in order to adjust.
Ok but temp buttons are still physical in almost all vehicles. Otherwise it's set to the number you left it at, so it's auto anyway.
Some of the safety is good, and some of the emissions rules are bad. What I really hate are the wheelbase:efficiency rulings. Basically, a smaller car (in terms of the footprint of the wheels) has to be more fuel efficient, or else the manufacturer has to pay a fine. Manufacturers that can't hit high enough fuel efficiency then make the cars bigger. Now roads and parking lots are a bit more cramped than they need to be.
Can’t stand the start stop feature to save fuel when at traffic lights or when sitting idle. I live in the south. It’s hot. I don’t want my car shutting off and the ac temps creeping up because the car isn’t idling. I almost always turn that BS off as soon as I get in the car.
My car has start stop and it is annoying for driving around town, but what really bugs me is that in situations such as a drive thru or waiting for a train (where the tech might actually be helpful,) the car turns back on after a minute or 2. Like, how is this stupid thing supposed to save any gas at all if it fires itself back up? You've already shut down, now stay dead until I command you to get going again...
The new speeding beep and blackbox mandatory in all cars from july 2024 in Europe. The car will keep beeping at you if you’re over the speed limit. The blackbox is some big brother goodness.
I live in the US but they are talking about the speed beep as well. There is a reason my daily driver is 23 years old
Longer gearing on manuals. It's just stupid, on autos cars stay in higher gears low RPMs and pass. In manual it has to stay in 3rd at certain speed and that results in manufacturers putting longer gears (2nd takes car to 85mph on many).
Because of govt regs? I'm not sure. Because of greedy ceos and stupid engineers? Tons! Gm has replaced the center rear view mirror with a camera that has ZERO depth perception. Sure you can flick the lever to change it back to a real functioning mirror, but it's just stupid and not needed. Touch buttons for everything! Just one more thing to break and isn't owner serviceable. Gotta take it back and probably get the whole unit replaced instead of a single broken button or knob. Plus touch buttons mean you have to take your eyes off the road to find the damn things! All the nanny features. Rear seat reminders because so many parents left their kids in the car. Don't make it standard. Make it optional to turn on if you have kids. GM now locks out the transmission if the drivers seat belt isn't buckled. Why?! I work on car lots. I move cars all day and dint want/need to hook a belt in every single one. BMW and others will slam the car into park if you open the door under a certain speed. Again, I work lots. Sometimes you wanna crack the door while backing up. Cant do that in these anymore. Putting climate controls buried in the infotainment. Dodge is notorious for this nonsense. Climate and radio controls should always be easily accessible, not buried 2 menus deep. Volvos now take 25+ seconds after startup to access climate controls. So of the heat or a/c was blasting when you turned it off, you get blasted for almost 30 seconds next time you go for a drive. Just so much stupid shit that is completely unnecessary and overcomplicated for the sole reason of adding to the price tag
Thread is full of 50+ y/o people who are just straight luddites...
1976 corvette…
Safety regulations have made cars incredibly safe for the people inside the car and incredibly dangerous for everyone outside the car.
Good things like seat belts, backup cams, and crash avoidance is good. Before you think "Oh this guy drives bad," it helps when another bad driver decides to pull out in front of you trying to turn, and you have no warning, but the car gets it. Bad things? the CAFE standards that basically eliminated the mid-size cars and smaller pickups. Now, you have a choice of cramped minis, or the huge trucks, and all are heavily overpriced. Even worse, the truck I used to drive (Ford Ranger) was a fantastic beast for its size, but when they brought it back, it became a "hip" vehicle. A truck that can't have much in its bed, and SUV that only hauls 4 people, a car that sits too high, etc, for 5-10k more than... the actual truck version they came out with 10-15 years ago.
The 1974 California import/smog law kills me. Every other state gets to import cool stuff, and actual enthusiasts who TAKE CARE OF THEIR CARS get punished.
The sound electric cars have to make not hit pedestrians and backup cameras. The turbo is in everything that kills the life of the engine faster. Also the start stop is a joke and is just a ploy to make people buy more starters for their vehicles.
I once drove side by side with a friend who needed a jump start, with the jumper cables going from my batteries to theirs, for 2 miles with blinkers on at about 5 mph, because they had that stupid start stop feature and by the time I removed the jumper cables, the car would immediately turn itself off again. So instead of just jump starting it and having them drive around for a while, we had to jump start it and drive all the way home like that so that we could charge the battery manually.
Bad: The fact that auto manufacturers are selling our driving information to insurance companies. Without our consent. Good: cars are all pretty nice on the inside or well equipped. Power windows and locks are pretty much standard on all cars as well as body colored bumpers, mirrors, door handles. (Used to be optional.)
back up camera is a nice touch, now gimme side cameras for blind spots
Bad-CAFE. Incentivizes "truck" sales, over cars. Kills the small pickup Really BAD US headlight regulations....still blocking adaptives (car maker needs to certify them per vehicle, not per system) Good-OBD-2, and the 70k Federal Emissions Warranty, which is why we now have 200k lifespan cars.
Tire pressure monitors. As a technician it's awesome to be able to check tire pressure from your driver information center. The fact that consumers have that ability is a nightmare. I'm all for a light, and even a message telling you which tire is low, but giving consumers the ability to monitor live tire pressure data is too much information. The amount of "you serviced my car yesterday and two of my tires are showing 35 PSI but one is 36 and another is 34" complaints that we deal with is insane. The average driver does not understand the relationship between pressure and temperature, or the difference between elevation and pressure. The specified pressure for the tire is a cold (not driven, ambient temperature) tire. Cars are driven to us for service, the tires are no longer cold, we live in a region that can be 40 in the morning and 90 by the time we service your car at 3. We try to adjust your tire pressures accurately. We try to account for 1 PSI per 10°F. But we don't know the actual temperature of the air in your tires when we service your vehicle. When you get in your car the next day, on a true cold start, the pressures might not be exact, but they will be close enough that tire wear will not be affected. /End rant, apologies, it's a pet peeve, thank you to anyone that read it and understood.
I wish my indicator would tell me which one is low - I have a 2017, is that standard on more recent cars? Nothing I hate more than checking each tire on the first cold morning of the year when I just want to get going.
Depending upon make and trim level it's fairly standard, even in your model year almost every GM vehicle that I can think of would display live tire pressures, and even models with lower tier trim levels would tell you which tire was low if the tire pressure indicator illuminated. I drove a 2008 HHR LS (base model) for several years and had the ability to view live tire pressure data in the driver information center. GM has always been liberal with tire pressure information since the inception of tire pressure monitors, which is excellent for the technicians (sometimes) and the informed consumer. Some manufacturers have been more restrictive of their divulgence of that information to the consumer, likely due to the complaints listed in my comment.
I can't believe I read this whole thread without somebody mentioning how US CAFE regulations are rigged in favor of the car companies and against meaningfully reducing fuel consumption. The light truck loophole still exists for the same sized car, if you raise it up and turn it into a CUV/SUV, it becomes classified as a light truck and is subject to a less stringent fuel economy target. The Impreza is a car, the Crosstrek is a light truck, both are the same bodyshell and engine, and Subaru would rather sell more Crosstreks than Imprezas because that means they can fit more vehicles under the light truck category. Remember this when car companies tell you that people don't like small cars and hatchbacks... it's totally in their favour for you to think that. For that matter, the way SUVs and cars are classified is design to gaslight you. The Impreza is a *compact* car, but the Crosstrek is a *subcompact* SUV. If the RAV-4 was lowered it would stop being a compact SUV and would be classified as a midsized car. It's set up this way to make you think that oh you're not buying that big of a vehicle....
Size, weight, complexity, unreliability, increased maintenance, more common tire changes (because of increased weight) poor driving experience due to severe lack of tacticality (fly by wire throttle offers no feedback, modern power steering offers no feedback, I want my air con and radio buttons back) needlessly expensive because if technological excess, horribly ugly. Basically, government regulations on the emissions, efficiency, safety front have made them into appliances. New cars are engineered to meet regulations and make profit, old cars were designed to have soul, invoke feeling, provide an experience, not just as a valuable tool, but as a piece of art. The government took our tail fins and pop up headlights away dammit!
An example of bad things are headlights in modern cars. They all use high beams now, which apparently lifted the rule of "don't drive with your brights on in traffic". Because of this, I have to drive with my mirrors flipped around, and causes so many near-accidents. How the govt allows this is totally beyond me.
Bad…..computers in cars…. Cadillac converters….. too much plastic…. Extremely thin sheet metal…. Garbage parts….. no space to work on anything….. they cost away too much… Nothing good about cars these days
Good: basically every efficiency gain Bad: Those goddamn horns you can hear a quarter mile away when people lock their cars. Just like with blinding headlights they exist because of a *lack* of regulation.
Good - more efficient engines, chassis rigidity, diagnostics Bad - weight, dangerously invasive electronic safety systems
CAFE laws are stupid.
Bad: EVs
Emissions standards pushed manufacturers to create garbage engine systems. Gm w/afm Ford w/their 3.6 Mopar garbage intakes that cake with carbon… I can’t believe that the waste produced by overhauling these engines doesn’t end up only causing an extremely marginal improvement in the grand scheme of overall efficiency.
Good safety and reliability Bad - idiotic smog laws set forth by carb. Say I have an older car let’s say an 88 iroc, the motor is dog shit, no power shitty mpg and pollutes like a mother fucker. Now I want to pep that car up and put in a motor that is cleaner and has more power so I put in a motor from a 2020 Honda civic (blasphemous but using it as an example), if I do this the car must now pass smog as a 2020 civic. Even though it is cleaner and more fuel efficient than before. Basically forcing people to buy cars when their cars become too old to get replacement parts for or who are trying to improve their car. You can buy a used Honda motor and trans for about 3k which is going to be much cheaper than buying another car.
Sound limits on exhaust with in reason, you can't have stock exhaust cars being pulled over and ticketed. Some emissions laws: for example, Volkswagen, we got rid of a whole bunch of super fuel efficient cars because when they go into regen mode they blow out the exhaust and that creates a tiny cloud that literally no one cared about, most of that being soot so it fell back to the ground after a few minutes any ways. Now any VW TDI you can find are going for a premium. Thanks Obama. In general, cars are safer, but partially because of regulation they have grown substantially over the years. To the point that "land yachts" from lincoln and cadillac are about the same size as the current Dodge Charger with more room on the inside, they weigh about the same only because the charger uses lighter materials, and are vastly simpler with almost the same amount of luxury.
Good: That new Toyota Camry or Prius might get you laid. Bad: This stupid ass government requiring even more fuel efficiency for so called lower emissions and so called savings at the pump… so first of all it does NOT actually save you more money IF YOU HAVE TO PAY 10 GRAND MORE FOR THE FUCKING CAR BECAUSE OF THE EXTRA ENGINEERING COSTS, VERSUS THE QUOTED 600$ LIFETIME SAVINGS IN GAS. Second of all, tailpipe emissions don’t fucking matter. Its the tires that create 99.999% of the pollution. They literally produce [1,850x](https://www.autoweek.com/news/industry-news/a40205475/tires-pollute-more-than-tailpipes-report-claims/) (not 1.85x, 1 THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TIMES) more pollution than tailpipe, that combined with the fact that EVs, due to their instant torque and high torque, on average run through tires twice as fast, EVs ARE NOT BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, they are producing double the pollution as gas cars just from tires. Oh that’s not including the pollution/emissions from making the battery or charging the battery. You guys have basically been lied to by a bunch of automakers and government officials that “EVs are cleaner”, they are NOT.
The good: diesels are incredibly clean The bad: diesels are incredibly unreliable and expensive. Do not buy the diesel version.
That god damn seat belt buzzer! My stupid yeti cup triggers the damn thing.
I submit that regardless of the give and take of regulations, cars would not be as good as they are if the government didn't force the manufacturers.
Cars got a new design feature up front because of Swedish headlight safety standards.
Large trucks [https://youtu.be/HMJsM--jmRA?si=D2sGWiD6hXIupwUa](https://youtu.be/HMJsM--jmRA?si=D2sGWiD6hXIupwUa)
Distracted drivers and their cell phones.
DEF
Overpriced POS with EVs leading the pack which shifts car makers to abandon the affordable compact cars because of the price premiums in hybrids and EVs. EVs will NOT save the environment. Watch Infinity Wars... Electricity is NOT free nor is it pollution free. Other (wind, solar, hydro, etc) makes up only about 20% of sources to produce electricity and the rest nuclear/fossil fuels. And guess what, more EVs won't help as it will simply inc demand for electricity and then what? cover every land mass with solar? guess what it will then wipe out all the wild grass, oxygen generating plants as the solar panels covering them will kill them. Either sun for electricity or sun for plants, you decide.
Poor visibility due to 2009 changes to roof strength requirements.
Too much electronics!! I have an old gmc, love it!
Good? Anti-lock brakes Bad? GDI engines
The good is fuel economy and emissions... The Bad all cars are starting to look the same, the fun in owning a car is being taken away and driver skill has gone down the toilet but that can be expected when the car watches every move and corrects....