US declares Biden fuel economy rules exceeded legal authority

[fordmantpw]

You don't have to have the brake to the floor, just a bit more than a light pressure.

 

Where it really agitates me is when I pull up to park.  It shuts off.  Put it in park, it starts back up.  Then I have to shut it off again.  Such a waste.  So, if it shuts off, I just hit the start/stop button before putting it in park.

[rmc523]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

Of course it does.  It tells you why it didn’t activate which could be battery, climate control or a dozen other reasons.

 

Thank you for telling me what my car says.  Yours might give you more detail.  I remember mine just saying generic things like conditions aren't right......I stopped looking at it long ago because it didn't tell much.  I'll see if it gives more detail

 

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

It probably depends a lot on driving conditions.  I had it on a rental car in DC area and it wasn’t entirely bad until we got stuck in stop-and-go traffic on Interstate due to an accident and it was horrendous.  I hated it so bad I swore I would never buy a car with it.

 

In my opinion the real issue is that government shouldn’t get involved in micromanaging automotive engineering and designs.  Even if this system saves 3 or 4 percent on fuel, and I doubt it does, why shouldn’t drivers have choice to drive 3 or 4 percent less, or buy a vehicle that is 3 or 4 percent more fuel efficient to start with so they don’t have to tolerate a function they don’t like?  That’s just one example.  Losing freedom of choice is a slippery slope.  I’m all for saving the planet and reducing GHGs but there has to be a better way than forcing people to buy features they don’t want.

 

"Losing freedom of choice" because you don't like pushing a button to turn off a function you don't like?

 

It'd be one thing if it was permanently on with no button.  Just push the button, or get something to turn the function off permanently.

[morgan20]

On 6/9/2025 at 11:28 AM, Biker16 said:

There are Simpler ways to like $2 a gallon Federal gas tax, that would be much simnpler.

 

Yea, ol' Billy Boy has been a proponent of that for the past 20 years

 

The executive chairman of Ford, Bill Ford Jr., has begun to advocate strongly for a gas tax that creates a price bottom for gasoline. Ford cites the need for “predictability” in fuel pricing and suggests the government send a price signal strong enough to turn people permanently toward buying fuel-efficient cars.

[Rick73]

On 6/17/2025 at 1:33 PM, rmc523 said:

"Losing freedom of choice" because you don't like pushing a button to turn off a function you don't like?

 

It'd be one thing if it was permanently on with no button.  Just push the button, or get something to turn the function off permanently.

Precisely.  Governments should set standards, not mandate specific solutions, with very few exceptions.

 

Governments should not pick or select winners and losers for us.  Mandating specific solution limits our collective choices to accomplish same goals in different ways.  Granted Auto Stop Start is not a mandate per se as far as I know, but because government can give automakers unrealistically-high credits and incentives, government can play games and essentially make it a mandate for all practical purposes.  We have to look beyond the political bullshit if we don’t want to fall prey to extremist on either end, who in many cases don’t know what they are talking about, but spin data to support their point of view even when not true.

 

As example only, the type of cars I prefer to drive can idle with a fuel burn rate of roughly 0.3 gallons per hour or less, which means it will idle 200 minutes on a gallon of gas.  If average ASS cycle is roughly 30 seconds, it would take 400 cycles to save a gallon of gas, more or less.  Use different numbers if you prefer.  The point is it may take a year of typical driving for me to save a gallon, or I could choose normal idling and drive 30 miles less a year and save that same gallon of gas.  So yeah, I see it as a personal choice others don’t have the right to make on my behalf.

 

The part that’s really aggravating though is when some activist argues why not do both, drive 30 miles less and use auto stop start to save 2 gallons of gas.  Sounds good on surface but why not save far more gas and reduce GHGs by trading a Navigator for a Focus?  Or better yet trade Focus for a bike?  Why not stop auto racing, prohibit performance cars, or discourage air travel that burns so much fuel?  If you’re willing to compromise principle and start down that slippery slope, where will it end?  The most extreme point of view I have seen expressed is that humans should disappear from surface of planet.  Just saying that before I listen to extremist I want to know where exactly their end game stops in trying to control any personal choices.  Today is pushing a button, and tomorrow it’s what?

 

To recap, while I personally love smaller fuel-efficient cars, I’m pro choice as far as having the right to consume (or waste if you prefer) gas or energy however I want, not based on what some politician thinks is right for me.

 

 

P.S. — Just read in a different thread that new Corvette can burn 2 gallons of premium per MINUTE at full throttle.  That’s acceptable and legal yet owners of fuel miser compacts are asked to deal with crap they don’t want in the name of saving the planet?  Seriously?  Give me a break.  Where is the legal equity in essentially mandating ASS and then allowing others to buy Corvettes, or far worse yachts or planes that burn 1,000s of gallons at a time?  This level of regulatory inconsistency is pushing our society closer to the brink. Not against regulations, just absurdity and injustice.

[Biker16]

4 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Precisely.  Governments should set standards, not mandate specific solutions, with very few exceptions.

 

Governments should not pick or select winners and losers for us.  Mandating specific solution limits our collective choices to accomplish same goals in different ways.  Granted Auto Stop Start is not a mandate per se as far as I know, but because government can give automakers unrealistically-high credits and incentives, government can play games and essentially make it a mandate for all practical purposes.  We have to look beyond the political bullshit if we don’t want to fall prey to extremist on either end, who in many cases don’t know what they are talking about, but spin data to support their point of view even when not true.

 

As example only, the type of cars I prefer to drive can idle with a fuel burn rate of roughly 0.3 gallons per hour or less, which means it will idle 200 minutes on a gallon of gas.  If average ASS cycle is roughly 30 seconds, it would take 400 cycles to save a gallon of gas, more or less.  Use different numbers if you prefer.  The point is it may take a year of typical driving for me to save a gallon, or I could choose normal idling and drive 30 miles less a year and save that same gallon of gas.  So yeah, I see it as a personal choice others don’t have the right to make on my behalf.

 

The part that’s really aggravating though is when some activist argues why not do both, drive 30 miles less and use auto stop start to save 2 gallons of gas.  Sounds good on surface but why not save far more gas and reduce GHGs by trading a Navigator for a Focus?  Or better yet trade Focus for a bike?  Why not stop auto racing, prohibit performance cars, or discourage air travel that burns so much fuel?  If you’re willing to compromise principle and start down that slippery slope, where will it end?  The most extreme point of view I have seen expressed is that humans should disappear from surface of planet.  Just saying that before I listen to extremist I want to know where exactly their end game stops in trying to control any personal choices.  Today is pushing a button, and tomorrow it’s what?

 

To recap, while I personally love smaller fuel-efficient cars, I’m pro choice as far as having the right to consume (or waste if you prefer) gas or energy however I want, not based on what some politician thinks is right for me.

 

 

P.S. — Just read in a different thread that new Corvette can burn 2 gallons of premium per MINUTE at full throttle.  That’s acceptable and legal yet owners of fuel miser compacts are asked to deal with crap they don’t want in the name of saving the planet?  Seriously?  Give me a break.  Where is the legal equity in essentially mandating ASS and then allowing others to buy Corvettes, or far worse yachts or planes that burn 1,000s of gallons at a time?  This level of regulatory inconsistency is pushing our society closer to the brink. Not against regulations, just absurdity and injustice.

 

Isn't it ironic that the standards we are discussing are really standards not mandates.

 

FWIW

[morgan20]

52 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

 

Isn't it ironic that the standards we are discussing are really standards not mandates.

 

FWIW

 

Yea, it's also ironic that the big shots at Ford are (were?) in favor of more stringent emissions and fuel economy standards. From last year:

 

Ford Motor Co said on Monday it backs the Biden administration's moves to dramatically cut vehicle emissions through 2032, rejecting Republican arguments the new climate rules are bad for business. 

The second largest U.S. automaker said it supports the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations announced in March to cut passenger vehicle fleetwide tailpipe emissions by nearly 50% by 2032 over 2027 levels.

 

"Complying with emissions regulations requires lengthy advance planning, and Ford has taken steps to transform its business to ensure compliance with stricter emissions standards," the Dearborn-based automaker said. It said it welcomed the regulatory stability that the Multi-Pollutant Rule will provide, preventing the "possibility of flip-flopping or changing standards."

 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, morgan20 said:

 

Yea, it's also ironic that the big shots at Ford are (were?) in favor of more stringent emissions and fuel economy standards. From last year:

 

Ford Motor Co said on Monday it backs the Biden administration's moves to dramatically cut vehicle emissions through 2032, rejecting Republican arguments the new climate rules are bad for business. 

The second largest U.S. automaker said it supports the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations announced in March to cut passenger vehicle fleetwide tailpipe emissions by nearly 50% by 2032 over 2027 levels.

 

"Complying with emissions regulations requires lengthy advance planning, and Ford has taken steps to transform its business to ensure compliance with stricter emissions standards," the Dearborn-based automaker said. It said it welcomed the regulatory stability that the Multi-Pollutant Rule will provide, preventing the "possibility of flip-flopping or changing standards."

 

Translation - we already spent the money and overcommitted to get there please don’t make us start over.  

[morgan20]

17 hours ago, akirby said:

Translation - we already spent the money and overcommitted to get there please don’t make us start over.  

 

Yea, thanks for tellin' it like it is. In Ford's defense, they're not the only automaker to do that, or the only automaker to make public statements in favor of the Biden era standards for emissions and fuel economy.

[akirby]

43 minutes ago, morgan20 said:

 

Yea, thanks for tellin' it like it is. In Ford's defense, they're not the only automaker to do that, or the only automaker to make public statements in favor of the Biden era standards for emissions and fuel economy.

Easier to know the devil you have to deal with instead of having to guess at two completely different paths forward.  The smarter play would have been to invest in EV platforms but slowly ramp up products while maintaining ICE and new hybrids until consumer demand switched.   It would have cost less and kept them in a better position overall.

[mackinaw]

1 hour ago, morgan20 said:

 

Yea, thanks for tellin' it like it is. In Ford's defense, they're not the only automaker to do that, or the only automaker to make public statements in favor of the Biden era standards for emissions and fuel economy.

 

Poor Stellantis.  Because of prior infractions, they've committed to follow the California regs no matter what happens at the federal level.

 

https://www.clubalfa.it/en/stellantis-bound-by-california-ev-targets-despite-federal-rollback-20993#google_vignette

[Biker16]

7 hours ago, mackinaw said:

 

Poor Stellantis.  Because of prior infractions, they've committed to follow the California regs no matter what happens at the federal level.

 

https://www.clubalfa.it/en/stellantis-bound-by-california-ev-targets-despite-federal-rollback-20993#google_vignette

 

They are getting what they deserve. 

[jpd80]

On 6/21/2025 at 10:38 AM, Biker16 said:

 

They are getting what they deserve. 

And you can see that the only reason that Stellantis kept North America manufacturing 

was to harvest money for its European brands, they could 

care less about Ram, Jeep and Dodge and thats sad……