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."  

You joke, but there's a very good chance that the new LFP battery plant in Michigan may not happen.  I those batteries go away, I expect many changes to their EV product plans.  See today's Autoline Daily.  Go to the 4:30 mark.   https://www.autoline.tv/daily/ad-4080-is-gm-trying-to-torpedo-ford-battery-plant-u-s-tariffs-will-raise-car-prices-by-1760-zoox-starts-building-avs-in-california/

Low Cost Ford EV Platform Will Support Up To Eight Body Styles   According to Axios, the low-cost Ford EV platform will support up to eight body styles, a revelation that came from Lisa Drake, Ford’s vice president of Technology Platform Programs and EV Systems, while she was speaking with investors last week. Drake noted that these vehicles could include crossovers, trucks, and even possibly sedans, all of which will use lithium-iron phosphate (LFP) batteries that are being developed with technology licensed from CATL and built in the U.S., all with an effort to keep costs as low as possible.   ---   Knowing Ford, that's 8 over the next 30 years, 6 of which will be cancelled next year, 4 revived the year after that, before being cancelled for good, alongside the discontinuation of 2 other models in the lineup without replacements...

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

Yea, exactly. RAM is the worst offender when it comes to setting MSRP too high and then pilin' on the rebates afterward. That kills resale value. For example, average transaction prices for RAM 1500 and Toyota Tundra when new are not much different, but with used trucks Tundra prices are consistently higher because of the shitty resale values for RAM.    

With ProMaster vans, RAM compromised reputation by using an old 6-speed transmission from minivans that were not up to the standard required for much heavier 1-Ton commercial vehicles.  Over the years there have been a lot of dissatisfied owners with transmission failures.  That was eventually addressed with switch to ZF 9-speed, but IMO it takes a lot to restore a reputation once tarnished.  Extending powertrain warranty should help, but IMO warranties are often only as good as companies are willing to honor them.

I think Chrysler Corp was first to introduce a 5yr/50K powertrain warranty across the board in the 60's. Toyota followed soon after with what is now the industry standard 5yr/60K mi powertrain warranty. As @morgan20 alludes to, it's a nice talking point, but won't result in much of an increase in sales.    I think MSRP reduction is what is needed. Offer a model and/or trim level without all the tech: no Blue Cruise, lane keeping or proximity cruise control, BLIS, 360 cameras, etc. This also would lower insurance premiums. I'm guessing there would be enough demand in the used car market to keep the resale residual percentages viable at trade in.

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.

Yea, exactly. For comparison, Nissan offered a 5 year/100,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty a few years ago on Titan and Titan XD. Didn't do any good as Nissan killed those trucks last year.  

That is supposed to still be an option on the higher trim levels.