There are lots of moves by the federal government that I, admittedly, question the logic of when they’re announced. This feeling is not limited to a single administration (ahem, Cash 4 Clunkers), although the current one seems like it’s trying an executive action speedrun. One of those actions, though, seems incredibly logical to me.
The Morning Dump is going to start with a discussion of the “light-truck” loophole that makes everything from a Lexus NX to a PT Cruiser a truck. It’s long been silly and resulted in plenty of vehicles getting approach or departure angles that make no sense. NHTSA is looking to close it, which seems good, although how automakers respond to it will be another question.
Also uncertain is how Volkswagen will approach the United States, given its product mix and production issues. The answer? Well, no answer yet. We do have an answer about whether or not this market will get the PHEV Ford Ranger, although it’s not the answer many of you would like to hear.
And, finally, what the hell is going on with Jaguar?
The Time Of The Mazda MPV Is Nigh
One of the ways automakers have long skated around fuel economy regulations is to offer a lot of ‘light trucks’ instead of passenger vehicles. Originally conceived in the late 1970s to avoid penalizing work trucks, the categorization of nearly every car for sale as a ‘light-truck’ is a total joke.
The most egregious early example of this is the PT Cruiser, as noted in this Automotive News story from 2002:
The PT Cruiser is another loophole-leaper, critics say. It is loosely based on the Dodge Neon and is equipped like a car. For instance, it has a standard car suspension and lacks four-wheel drive. But it meets NHTSA’s light-truck definition because it has removable rear seats, leaving a flat floor.
“The primary advantage is CAFE,” said Jan Zverina, a Chrysler group spokesman. “Trucks have inherently larger, more powerful engines because they have to be more capable for hauling.” Having the smaller, more fuel efficient four-cylinder PT Cruiser classified as a truck helps the company meet its CAFE requirement, he says.
But can that same flat-floor case be made for the two-door PT Cruiser convertible, which has a big convertible boot positioned above the floor? The convertible bows in early 2004. NHTSA could be in the odd position of classifying a convertible as a truck.
It’s a silly loophole big enough to drive a Subaru Outback through.
The current regulations have all sorts of ways a vehicle can be considered to fit into the ‘light-truck’ category, like meeting some of the requirements for being an off-roader, including: approach angle, breakover angle, departure angle, running ground clearance, and axle clearance. This is one reason why you have the awkward chins on so many crossovers.
As S&P Global’s Stephanie Brinley writes, the current administration is considering closing this loophole:
NHTSA is dropping axle clearance from the list, leaving the other values the same.
However, under the proposed rule, a vehicle would have to meet all four criteria to be classified as a non-passenger vehicle via off-road capability.
A proposed new Light Duty Work Factor (LDWF) pathway to light-truck classification is new. LDWF reflects a vehicle’s ability to tow and carry payload, both considered ‘work’ functions. LDWF takes the sum of payload and towing, with towing weighted more heavily than payload, to arrive at a figure.
A vehicle may be considered a light truck if it meets a LDWF greater than 5,500 pounds and has four-wheel drive or is rated more than 6,000 pounds GVWR or meets the revised off-road criteria.
This seems sensible, right? I keep waiting for the catch (other than setting CAFE penalties at $0).
Brimley determines that this might cause more soft-road crossovers to end up as passenger cars (they are), given that fully off-roadizing some unibody crossovers or giving them huge tow ratings might not be worth it.
Or, maybe it will be worth it. Does anyone remember the Mazda MPV 4WD? This was a true RWD/4WD van with off-road chops, albeit no sliding door. It was a strange, tweener offering based on the Mazda 929 platform. I love these, and if this means we get more off-road vans, that’s great. Vans or crossovers that can tow 6,000 pounds would also be excellent, although the engineering necessary for this might be inefficient.
VW Sales Boss On America: Yeah, We’ll Do Something
For all my writing about Volkswagen’s issues, this is somewhat an American-centric view. The development of EVs is, slowly, working out for the brand in Europe as it outsells Tesla there and otherwise achieves something like moderate success in a tough environment.
VW sales boss Martin Sander gave a long interview to Automotive News about what’s working for the brand in places like China, Mexico, and Europe. As for the United States? It’s a little less clear:
Could you provide more details on VW’s plan to add hybrids to its U.S. lineup?
That is a very valid and important question. The hybrid market is growing, especially with the new legislation in the U.S., for the time being, heavily impacting the growth potential of electric vehicles. That is why we have hybrids in the pipeline for the U.S. That said, the vast majority of the U.S. market is made up of traditional ICE models, and we have extremely competitive products like the Taos, Tiguan and Atlas to offer.
Ok, so that’s not an answer.
ID Buzz sales in the U.S. have been lackluster. Dealers say the price is too high and the range is too low. How does VW plan to address this? Is shifting ID Buzz production to Chattanooga or Mexico being considered?
There are no plans to move production. The U.S. tariffs had an enormous impact on the model’s sales, but we have been able to significantly increase deliveries of the ID Buzz in recent months. In Europe alone, deliveries increased by 80 percent by the end of September.
That is an answer, sort of, but the answer is: There’s no real plan to fix it we can share.
Is VW considering any other moves that would add production in the U.S. to further offset the impact of tariffs?
We are in a good position because we already produce the Atlas and ID4 in the U.S. Indeed, the significantly increased U.S. tariffs pose a challenge to our business model. One potential reaction could be to further localize production in the market. As I mentioned, we are evaluating options for the Volkswagen Group brands but haven’t made a decision yet.
Volkswagen seems to be approaching North America the same way I approach my BMW: Things will be improved and addressed, eventually, at a time and place of my choosing, which is neither this time nor, likely, this place.
Who Actually Thought We Were Getting The Ranger Super Duty?
I am a person who goes out of my way to believe we’ll get vehicles in the United States that we’re clearly not going to get. I call this optimism. Other people may call it “being dumb.” Either way, not even in my wildest dreams did I think we’d get a Ranger Super Duty. Even with our lauding praise of the Vehicle, it was clear this wasn’t an option given the F-150’s existence.
The PHEV Ranger sold in Europe? I was probably a little more hopeful we’d get that, though I wasn’t holding my breath. Good thing! I’d be dead, according to Car & Driver:
Whether it’s a discontinued menu item at your favorite restaurant or a foreign market vehicle that will never make it stateside, it always hurts to want something that you can’t have. Both the Ranger plug-in hybrid and Ranger Super Duty can now officially be added to the latter list, as Ford has confirmed that neither of the new and desirable foreign-market variants of its mid-size pickup will make it to America.
Sure.
Did Gerry McGovern Not Actually Get Fired?
The big news earlier this month was that Jaguar Land Rover Chief Creative Officer Gerry McGovern was not just fired, but was also reportedly escorted out of the building. A statement sent out to the press, which Motor1 got a copy of, says he wasn’t fired at all:
Update, 12/12: After reaching out to Jaguar a second time, the company issued a statement saying that it has not fired design boss Gerry McGovern. A company spokesperson told Motor1: “It is untrue we have terminated Gerry McGovern’s employment and we do not intend to further comment on speculative stories.” The story has been updated to reflect that.
This leads to some interesting possibilities. Did he quit instead of getting fired (which, with his contract, may have been hard to do)? Did he get fired, but is refusing to accept a breakup agreement? Did he quit, but they didn’t actually want him to leave, and are now trying to convince him to stay?
There’s silence on both ends of this, which is fascinating.
In an act of stunningly brave and labor-intensive journalism, I just emailed Gerry to ask what’s up and got this response:
Thanks for the regards! I will wait for a response.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
As a tribute to The Mavericks’ lead singer, Raul Malo, Austin City Limits posted this live performance of “All You Ever Do Is Bring Me Down.” RIP Raul.
The Big Question
Ok, with the light-truck loophole maybe closing, what’s the goofiest/best outcomes?
Top photo: Mazda
I had a coworker who had a AWD MPV. It was a cool family hauler for the time, but every time he even looked at it, it would get other rust hole. It was only a few years old but ready for the David Tracy collection.
Damn, that’s a bummer.
I’ve seen an ID Buzz around here a few times. The bright colors are great but what strikes me is how HUGE they are!
I haven’t seen a single one in the wild in the months.
The goofiest outcome is the most likely: SUV’s will simply become a little more expensive, less efficient, less comfortable and less practical as they turn more truck-like to meet the new standard, most consumers won’t notice or care, and the world will silently become a slightly worse place. We will not get more cars, we will not see an improvement in emissions, we will not pass Go, we will not collect $200.
For a small subset of people, this would actually be a great outcome. Post GMT800 suburban I have had 0 interest in any modern SUV / truck because they can only do one or the other of these two things: tow 9000 LB, fit inside a garage. If it can’t tow the trailer, what’s the point of owning a tow rig. If it can’t fit the garage I’ll both never use it except for towing and it’ll be cheaper to rent something 5 times a year than pay for parking / registration / insurance.
Yeah, what needs to be done is give up on basing the “light truck” classification on any sort of tow/haul/offroad capability, or size of the shadow it casts, and reclassify everything with a back seat that’s not a full-fledged bus as a car for MPG and safety standards because that’s how they’re used.
Suburban? Car. Crewcab pickup with 5′ bed? Car. There’d be a few strays – a 3500 dually crewcab would be forced to meet the same standards as a Corolla – but that’d be a small price to pay.
I honestly think we could solve the problem even more easily, by eliminating the light duty truck category altogether. Heavy duty vehicles should require a commercial driver’s license and a speed governor at 90mph, and everything else is a passenger vehicle. The 3500 dually crewcab can become a heavy duty vehicle, and a 1500 can get classified as an HD, meet the 39.1mpg target, or get fucked. I legitimately cannot begin to care about anyone who’d be upset if a truck is slow. It’s a truck. It’ll be slow. If you think you deserve a truck with real power, you’ll just have to get a real truck license.
I started writing a comment, then when scrolling to check something, I saw your comment and now I don’t need to finish. You nailed my target sentiment completely. Fuck the LDWF, it was a rule made without seeing the unintended consequences, which have been terrible.
Thank you. If you want something with enormous power you should be specially licensed to handle it.
I would put the speed governor for heavy duty vehicles at 75.
A 3500 dually is not a heavy duty vehicle. It is a medium duty vehicle (10,001 to 26,000 lbs). Heavy duty vehicles start at 26,001 pounds.
Personally I’m not a fan of the idea of needing a commercial drivers license to drive a 10 foot Express box truck from UHaul.
The rental and RV companies alone will tie up all this in court for a century.
Thanks for the correction, there’s definitely an importance in separating heavy and medium duty vehicles. I’d go as far as saying there should be a separate license grade for medium duty vehicles, one that’s more accessible than a full-blown CDL.
As for the license thing, I’m even less enthused about the lowest common denominator Class-D license holder sitting behind the wheel of a U-Haul box truck or a 3500 with a 35ft trailer. Most of them don’t know what a blinking yellow light means, or how to use a roundabout. I’d be totally ok with a personal use medium duty license being introduced, as long as the people driving these things have some training.
As for U-Haul, I’ve been to countries with car-based box trucks/vans, of course they’re not as capable as the big box trucks, but they’re already more capable than the average driver. For anything bigger, people would need to hire a professional or get a medium duty license, which is a downside from the driver’s perspective, but an upside for everyone that has to share the road with them.
Side note/disclaimer: I know I’m pitching some ideas that are in conflict with existing systems, and I have no hope that anything like this will be implemented, it would require some restructuring on the federal level and upset many industries with immense lobbying power. But I’d rather scream into the void about hypothetical ideal solutions than pitch realistic compromises to imaginary government officials that aren’t reading this.
You clearly don’t realize how much federal law you are planning on rewriting.
The chaos will be spectacular!
Good thing I’m not in office, cause that’s not even the tip of the iceberg of federal laws I’d rewrite if given the chance.
Just removing contradictory laws passed by the ATF would take ages without opposition.
My crewcab 5.5′ bed does plenty of truck stuff. Like tow up to 10k (I have a 7k lb boat.) It hauls 4×8 sheets of whatever just fine – you just fold down the tailgate. It hauls boards up to 12′ long – again just fold down the tailgate. Greasy car parts like big block engines fit just fine back there. Fold up the rear seats and it has lots of dry, secure storage. Fold them down and it carries 5 people to tailgate before a game. It fits into a standard parking spot, too.
People will vote with their money, same as always.
Does no one think things through?
I don’t know, I’m actually not that pessimistic about this.
It’s one thing to give a crossover like the Lexus NX or the Bronco Sport a weird chin… It’s quite another to drastically change GVWR or re-engineer the platform for a different drivetrain layout. These vehicles are popular in their current form and price point, and have to compete world-wide. At some point (and I would argue we are there) it becomes easier to simply cut the charade and build said crossover to meet passenger car safety and fuel economy standards.
Regardless of politics, fuel economy is hugely marketable. Most of the CUVs and crossovers this regulation would apply to already meet or are within range of the possible regulatory changes.
The Rav4 is the quintessential crossover, and the best selling vehicle in the world. It is already going hybrid only for 2026. Don’t think this regulation wasn’t timed to cause minimal impact- ie. just in time for mass hybridization to be well underway.
The realistic outcome would be the rest of the CUV market following suit. Lexus drops the non-hybrid NX, RX etc. (Who was buying those anyways?) The Bronco Sport gets the PHEV drivetrain from the Escape. CRV goes hybrid only. Larger SUVs like the Honda Pilot/Passport get the hybrid that is already in the works.
I hope you’re right, at least about the GVWR thing.
About 4WD systems, I suspect they’d just hook up a selectable switch (on, off, auto) to the controller of the existing part-time Haldex systems and call it a “smart 4×4” for legal reasons.
You’re probably right about the hybridization situation, and I’ve even said myself that EV’s would bring back cars, as consumers care more about range than economy, and EV’s aren’t subject to CAFE.
The Wrangler and Bronco do big volume so off-road cosplay in overpriced, uncomfortable boxes sells
Assuming your email was to Gerry’s “@jlr.com” address or something, you might have gotten a bounceback if he got totally shitcanned lol. I feel like Uncle Adrian has to have some inside info here but I respect that you’re probably not sharing for professional reasons. I look forward to a Tales from the Slack on it when what actually happened is revealed.
This one’s a hot take and pretty far out there, but if their rules specifically call for 4WD and not AWD, people’s obsession with AWD everything may go away. AWD belongs on sports cars (preferably with 3 torsen style LSDs), and 4WD belongs on work trucks or real off roaders. Most crossovers don’t pretend to be either. Adding an open differential in the middle connecting the front and rear together only means that instead of you being stuck if 1 of 2 driven wheels is on ice, now all it’ll take is 1 of your 4 driven wheels being on ice for you to get stuck. Huge counterpoint here though is that traction control systems have gotten very good but this both takes many revolutions before it clamps down and is causing significant amounts of wear / heat and can’t be used in a heavy duty situation. Same thing applies to things like the electronic LSD’s.
The vast majority of AWD systems don’t use a center differential, that’s very rare nowadays. They use a coupling, basically a light-duty transfer case. These are called Haldex systems. Most of these vehicles are FWD until the front wheels are slipping, then the computer locks up the coupling to send torque to the rear as needed until it stops detecting slip at the front. On certain vehicles with longitudinal engines, it’s the same thing except it’s RWD by default. The only cars with full-time, differential-based AWD systems that I’m aware of right now are Audi Quattros (but only S-models and above) and Subaru Symmetric AWD-equipped cars, and both of those have a Torsen center differential (and are thus called Torsen-based AWD systems).
I still believe the necessity of AWD is severely overblown by most consumers (and of course salesmen), but its efficacy isn’t, it actually works on a slippery hill.
Now, most of these coupling-based systems make handling actively worse by being unpredictable, heavy, laggy, and by raising the center of gravity as many cars need the engine to be mounted a few inches higher so the front diff can fit under it, and I wouldn’t recommend them to anyone who doesn’t routinely drive uphill on ice, but for those that do, it’s fit for purpose.
The amount of allowable wheel slip varies widely across different car brands though. That’s why there are so many YouTube channels that explicitly test various AWD systems in scientific (putting various wheels on rollers to see how their traction control programs work) and unscientific (running cars up a common offroad hill to see which ones make it to the top).
Regarding wear, with traction performance being equal, I’d rather move drivetrain wear out to the brakes (like with brake-based torque-vectoring) as it’s cheaper to change pads/rotors than a differential or transfer case, but I realize that performance is very rarely equal between a software-controlled brake-based torque distribution mechanism and a purely mechanical one. I’m also talking in terms of an average driver using AWD for snow / light mud traction, not someone on the Rubicon Trail.
A sort of in-between purely mechanical and brake-based systems are the electronic differentials in cars like the Honda Ridgeline/Pilot/Passport, Ford Bronco Sport, etc where it’s almost like inboard brakes on each side of the differential, built into the differential case. Unlike an electronic locking differential, these can vary the torque to each side on the fly, or fully lock up. In my experience, at least one in the Ridgeline is very reliable while also being highly effective. My parents have a 2006 Ridgeline, and it’s only ever needed normal gear oil changes while also being highly capable offroad in conditions my old Wrangler found challenging.
I have a huge admiration for Raul Malo. There was a big celebration of his work at the Ryman when he was in the hospital – he had an enormous impact on Nashville music over the years.
RIP Raul, RIP Steve Cropper, RIP Todd Snider – all lost in the last month or so.
Oh damn. I didn’t realize we’d lost Todd Snider, too. May he rest in peace.
Pretty good writeup in the Nashville Scene about him, if you’re interested.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why they refuse to bring the Hybrid Ranger to North America.
The sales numbers show hybrids are going gangbusters. Surely it must be an emission standards thing with whatever drivetrain they’re using.
I would guess it’s because it’s enough truck for most Americans, but not made there. You can’t make the F-150 look bad.
See also how Ford dithered on minivans all through the ’70s to protect the Country Squire only to miss the minivan boat all through the ’80s as wagon sales dwindled.
I have a neighbour who runs a small business making custom architectural iron work and uses his truck for truck stuff. I have always seen him in an F150. Recently he switched to a Ranger. He said it does exactly the same thing for him but is a whole lot easier to park. Especially allowing him greater choices of parking garages due to it being lower. He still complained that even the Ranger is too high and jacked up.
He wasn’t ready to move all the way to a Maverick type vehicle (not sure why, maybe payload?), but I’d be willing to bet he would have taken a hybrid quite happily.
Friend does iron railings and only buys Cummins diesels.And he misses the older models.
Then why have the Ranger with two different engines? Along with a Baby Raptor version with a 3rd engine?
Ford’s logic that “the hybrid mav and hybrid F150 already serve the market” is absolute BS. If that was true, then the gas Ranger shouldn’t exist either because of the F150 and Mav.
Furthermore, NEITHER of those is a plug-in hybrid. And the F150 Powerboost has a negligible increase in fuel economy.
true, I have yet to see a Hybrid BOF truck that comes with significant fuel economy gains over the gas only truck. The F150 is probably the best at around 20% better city FE but the Tacoma and Tundra are targeting extra power rather than FE. I don’t even consider Mild Hybrids like the Ram with the Hemi but the Ramcharger with EREV powertrain should be nice
20% better fuel economy is pretty huge when the base mpg is so poor.
Because if people who want to plug their truck in do not buy the F-150 Lightning they are going to have to cancel it. Why introduce something that will compete with something on the chopping block?
Given the absolute price chasm between the two, I HIGHLY doubt they’re being cross-shopped.
Do people cross shop by MSRP or by monthly payment? The Lightning has 0% financing for 72 months. The payments are pretty similar to a comparable Ranger at market rates for 60 months. Sure they tricked you into another year of payments, but gas saving should be pretty significant by year number 6.
I’m going to assume it would cannibalize the regular F-150 and Lightning (which itself is just about dead) too much.
That said, a range-extended Lightning with the standard battery pack (or an even smaller one than thatoday) and loses the frunk for a small generator would be super intriguing if that was ever a thing.
It likely has nothing to do with emissions standards or concerns of cannibalization of F-150 Sales, instead it is simply factory capacity. They likely do not have the floor space at Michigan Assembly Plant needed to add in the line requirements for adding a hybrid option, especially a PHEV. On top of having to retool the powertrain build, frame, and trim lines. they’d also need to add capacity to the body shop for the floor pan build, and the new fender with the PHEV hook up. Changing for the different motor options is a lot easier since it’s a shared line with the Bronco that also gets those same powertrains the capacity is already built in. It still baffles me that the new gen Expedition/Navigator don’t get the Powerboost powertrain since they’re F150 based and only get the 3.5EB already. It was a fairly intensive plant retool of the Body shop and Trim lines.
Expedition/Navigator may be F150 based but probably don’t get the Powerboost because they don’t share an assembly plant.
it should be fine in regards of the drivetrain. It’s the same 2.3 Ecoboost + an Electric Motor and 11kW battery pack. Good for 277 hp but a stomping 514 ft-lbs of torque.
Too much capability and probably range to steal sales from the F150 Hybrid…
Man the MPV is pretty much extinct on US roads, and has been for some time. My only real memory of them is getting my finger smashed in the sliding door as a very small child. When I grew up, the SUV onslaught was really beginning. We had a 2nd Gen Odyssey, but the Eddie Bauer Explorers were the real soccer mom status symbols.
Thanks for the Raul Malo.
My favorite show on Pacifica Radio network was “We The People”. Raul Malo sang the theme song. I was fortunate to have been his backstage security supervisor for the Music For All Occasions tour in 1996 Houston Texas. I got his autograph in an elevator escorting him to his dressing room.
He was so kind and so very talented. R.I.P.
I’ve said it before — there’s a Mazda MPV that street parks a block from me, and it is perfect for a thousand things, Great visibility, such cargo room, and looks roomy enough that if you have up to two little monsters, the seats are far enough apart that you don’t need a third row to stave off the threat of mutual pedicide.
Today the beltline would be higher due to side impact regs, but the drivetrain would be way more fuel efficient while probably being more powerful too.
Thanks for the Raul Malo shout out. I enjoy his work with the Mavericks but teaming up with Los Super 7 produced his best efforts.
Speaking of Mavericks, my little “not a real TRUCK” seems to hit the double cab with a bed tier of Good Things…
Way back when URLs were just numbers and not names, I was shared a URL to some live Mavericks video. That was back around 1998 or so. Watched them at work and they were what introduced me to them. The Mavericks came though town last year where I was able to enjoy a live performance. Such greatness.
That headline was written to force me to click, obviously. I mean, come on. Off-road minivans hitting the scene? Stop. I can only get so erect.
I’ve always wanted a modern take on the Delica, and would purchase one the moment said modern take comes available. That being said, no amount of loophole filling is going to make that happen. People cannot be swayed from gray crossover. Gray crossover is legion.
Goofiest outcome: CUVs become even more ungainly and awkward than they already are.
Best outcome: The entire automotive stock of the US becomes smaller, lighter, and more efficient.
Outcome we’re gonna get: As it’s been for 250 years, rural Americans will receive the full benefit of the politics of this, and F-350s will be classified as “economy cars”.
There are days I feel vulnerable in a sedan anymore.
“Outcome we’re gonna get: As it’s been for 250 years, rural Americans will receive the full benefit of the politics of this, and F-350s will be classified as “economy cars”.”
Yes. They are the real victims here. :EYEROLL:
Never fear.
Lack of internet access and good jobs is keeping the population down, except no one can afford housing in cities now.
RVs are rapidly filling in housing gaps now, including large motorhomes.
On my street there are more pickups than SUVs and jeeps.
And semis move cattle.
Don’t ask me how.
I brought a semi down this road and it is not easy.
There’s a song that comes to mind…
Our Lords and Knights, and Gentry too, doe mean old fashions to forgoe:
They set a porter at the gate, that none must enter in thereat.
They count it a sin, when poor people come in.
Hospitality it selfe is drown’d.
Yet let’s be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn’d upside down.
Wow!
A bunch of the top selling CUVs get classified as the cars they are and one day I will be greeted by a TMD headline of “Passenger vehicle sales rose 8000% for the quarter while light truck sales fell by 5000%”.
Must protect F-150 as best selling vehicle for nearly 50 years….oh wait, RAV4 toppled it. Oh well.
They said nearly 50 years. They never mentioned anything about them all being in a row.
I had to search pretty hard to find my FWD Mazda CX-5. Mazda quit making them around 2021 because the FWD versions didn’t meet the light truck spec and were therefore classified as cars, and that was no bueno.
If they change the rules, that might bring back 2WD crossovers. Then they could lower the roof and overall height. They could call ’em, I dunno, station wagons?
As genuinely practical as FWD is, we’re crossing the point with so much pointing to AWD “just in case” where a Toyota Camry can get it as default for any trim but the lowest.
A whole lot of Americans live south of the 38th parallel and rarely, if ever, need AWD. It adds weight and complexity, reduces fuel economy, and increases maintenance. I think AWD is being oversold to a lot of Americans, just to push CUV into the “light truck” class.
You think?
The vast majority who see winter would easily fall into the same group of people who rarely, if ever, truly need AWD. Especially those in urban environments.
My experience is urban areas are worse. In Feb 2010 the Pittsburgh area received about 26″ of snow on a Saturday night. After spending all day Sunday digging and dragging my Camry to a cleared road, I drove to my job all week in a rural area 35 miles away in a FWD Camry. My wife struggled to get our daughter to daycare and her job on City streets in a WJ Grand Cherokee with SelecTrac.
There was no place to put the plowed snow.
I don’t see many 2WD vehicles in ditches or collisions because they weren’t moving, but I sure see a whole lot of AWD CUVs crashed because they couldn’t stop.
Wasn’t AWD supposed to cut braking distances in half? /s
“If only those 2WD cars got out of my way”
-some pickup truck driver, currently sitting in a snowy ditch with oversized mud tires, probably
So fucking accurate. Spotted in local snowmobile FB group: “What 37″ mud / all terrain tires are you guys running on your trucks for the winter?”
Ever heard of snow tires?
It’s too bad most of those guys are too broke to bother. Any 4×4 pickup with stock-sized snow tires is an absolute animal in the snow.
“But they say M+S”
-as they slide through the frosted-over intersection
I genuinely saw a lifted Sierra with oversized proper winter tires the other day. I was impressed.
That’s like, some Icelandic behaviour right there.
You’re thinking of traction control.
I prefer my FWD sedan for 90% of my driving. My Highlander is used for vacations, home store runs. And days like today, where the Pgh area got 6″ of snow over the weekend and the City proper still has not figured out where to put it. My ex-burban region was cleared yesterday, but the (hilly) City proper is still a mess.
My daugher called an hour ago and thanked me for the proper snow tires on her Prius. The streets to her job were an unplowed morrass of slush and snow.
Except that those of us who are actually looking for station wagons end up having to buy an Audi or Volvo that has AWD and stupid plastic cladding to look like a crossover despite not getting any of these light truck benefits.
Best outcome is that more PHEVs and hybrids, be they actual cars or SUVs or trucks, are made in order to meet CAFE standards.
My family had a Mazda MPV when I was growing up and that thing was great, except for not having sliding doors. I also felt really cool when it got a shout out from the Wu-Tang Clan in their C.R.E.A.M song/video.
Brian Kelly to Jaguar!!1!
From Justin to Kelly!
There is zero reason to do any very expensive knee-jerk reactions to the current asinine US tariff situation. Trump is very obviously not long for the world, whether by finally kicking off it (hopefully), by having his political hold over Congress broken, or SCOTUS ruling his tariffs are taxes and taking away his ability to levy them without Congress. So spending many hundreds of millions to shuffle production around the world would be stupid. Better to keep the status quo for the moment and sell what you can in this goofy market, and spend your attention on markets that are a better fit for you anyway.
The light truck loophole is just another way that CAFE has long distorted the market. Trying to regulate supply was, is, and will always be stupid. Regulate demand via appropriate taxation of fuel and vehicles if it is in society’s interest to do so, then let the market decide.
You’re probably right. The only hitch would be- what if Vance steals it in ’28?
I mean, it’s not like they haven’t tried before.
Vance doesn’t have the charisma – I see zero chance of him being the Republican nominee next time. And he isn’t stupid enough to continue the tariffs even if he did. And to the extent that anyone in the administration says anything against Trump, he has publicly opposed them.
You don’t think he’ll be the Republican nominee? But isn’t it “his turn”?
Not a chance in Hell. Well, I kind of HOPE he is, it would be a boon to the Democrats. He would certainly get the couch vote.
Though as usual, it is the Democrat’s election to lose, and they are just so damned good at losing. But I think BOTH sides learned a lesson about “it’s their turn” from both Clinton and Harris. Especially Harris.
Rs good at getting elected but bad at governing, Ds bad at getting elected but good at governing.
I agree with that assessment very much.
I am all for more 4wd minivans. How about something like a Pacifica on an Wrangler frame etc. (silly example) or Renault Kangoo Trekka 4×4.
Please see the Pacifica Grizzly Peak.
I did before I wrote it. And I went into the garage and looked at the size difference between my JKU and my Pacifica.
Just make the truck rule simple. Base the LDWF off payload, not towing and make the minimum payload 2,000 pounds or it must have 4 wheel drive and have 35 inch tires standard.
Most crew cab half tons won’t meet that definition.
So we up the payload on them.
That’s a significant change. There’s no need for all this complication. Just set the goalposts to represent an achievable improvement over where the industry is now and stop moving them for different contestants. Letting manufacturers trade credits is supposed to allow partial-line manufacturers to even the playing field without these games.
How about this for simple. If it is body on frame construction, it’s a truck
Honestly, that’s how I have always viewed it.
My Ford wagon is body on frame, much moreso than my trucks.
I’d say it’s closer to being a truck than a traverse unibody SUV is
I put a thousand pounds of steel in the back once.
Performance and highway mileage didn’t change at all.
True, but they haven’t made a BoF car in years.
Sadly true
Honestly probably a better distinction than the one we have now, but I see no reason to make any distinction at all. Light duty is light duty. If the government wants to prioritize saving fuel they can tax it more or set weighted average targets and let the OEMs trade credits if they choose to ignore the efficient end of the market.
So they’re passenger cars.
Is that why the rangers had a smaller payload rating than a sports car?
The old ranger that can’t as a single cab? That’s probably a consequence of warming over an old platform again and again, adding more stuff until all the payload was eaten away.
The 90s to later Ranger that my friend carried as much as 10,000 pounds with the four cylinder.
His was a single cab fleet version, incredibly rare at the time.
Makes the ratings suspiciously conservative.
They did come with a wide number of suspension settings.
I’ve only seen the max load version in the long bed, but I don’t know what the official rating was on those.
The Ford freestyle van with a cvt had a tow rating of Zero, and similar cargo rating.
There is no way anything light duty carried 10k lbs. Towed, maybe, but that sounds wildly over capacity if it’s the vehicle I’m thinking of.
Are you in Europe? Tow ratings are significantly inflated there because towing comes with speed restrictions that makes it all a lot less challenging to design for.
That’s not a tow weight, speed was probably very slow. Manual trans and 4 cyl.
Rangers are wildly underestimated.
Mine was hit at speed and spun around so violently it nearly rolled.
The car that hit me was totaled. I drove home.
My friend is a metal worker.
I helped him bring a full size commercial lathe home in an ancient Toyota pickup once.
I had to sit in the cab during loading to keep the front wheels on the ground.
That was a slow trip.
I really didn’t think that would work.
I honestly think light duty trucks could meet passenger car regulations with modern technology, to such a degree that we could just eliminate the category altogether, and offer emissions exceptions to heavy duty trucks exclusively.
How we define a heavy duty doesn’t matter that much, as long as it requires a Class-A license, mudflaps (for road operation, they could be removable for offroad use), and an 80-90mph top speed governor. Of course, they’d get a different-color license plate (front and back in all states) for easy spotting, and exceeding governed speed would be a federal crime.
Even without any other rules, if a manufacturer was free to ship anything as a high-emissions “heavy duty”, nobody would want to buy a family car that requires an enhanced license, and nobody would get an enhanced license to operate a sports car that can’t hit triples.
You had me, then you lost me.
You know who else will get that governor?
VW not significantly shifting production doesn’t surprise me; it’s a multi-year investment that needs to pay off for even longer.
They’re not the only one waiting out the noise, and making only minor shifts in work.
Ok, with the light-truck loophole maybe closing, what’s the goofiest/best outcomes?
Elimination of the 25 year import rule and acceptance of European safety standards.
Or, just matching bumper heights between vehicles.
Once upon a time this was a thing….
Bumper? What’s a bumper?
-Hyundai designers
A tailgate should never be a bumper!!
Only if the lifted trucks come down.
The best outcome will be all the commenters who think the light truck loophole is the reason sedans aren’t offered/popular anymore having to find another way to explain away the reality that Americans actually like buying and driving crossovers.
Clearly, Americans are sensible folk and appreciate the obvious superiority of the hatchback form factor, just as long as you give it a different name.
Hatchbacks are not superior to sedans, and I’ll fight to the end on that opinion. Also, I’ll never stop someone from disagreeing! 🙂
For utility, station wagons are the best form factor. Minivans are second.
Nothing is better for overall utility than a crew cab truck, even a minivan.
Internal storage for people or cargo, external storage for dirty stuff, 4×4 and ground clearance for tougher environments, towing capacity no van or wagon can match, and so on.
Unless you have a lot of dogs and kids that need heat and air in the back. Things like Suburbans have been useful for generations.
Full size SUVs I accept as equally good as a truck depending on the specific needs. I almost mentioned them in my post and should have.
A rear heater is simple to add.
simple? how about AC?
Not nearly as simple.
My truck is capable of cooling the rear, but would require ducting or a fan between the cab and bed at a minimum.
Possibly Z chips mounted on the roof of the topper?
https://nogglenation.com/
The noggle thing is ingenious.
There is a cooling vest made for high humidity areas like here, but they must be cooled down by something else.
Cooling vests for low humidity are very cheap.
My biggest knock on trucks as a “do it all” sort of vehicle is the bed. Yes, it allows for more flexibility, however it comes at the penalty of being open to the elements. While there are ways around that of course, it is cumbersome to switch back and forth, especially if you have a need to do so often. Otherwise, I’m pickin’ up what you’re throwin’ down!
That’s why crew cab is goated…people or stuff inside and away from the elements.
There is more room in the back seat of my truck than behind the third row of my minivan.
A regular cab truck suffers from exactly what you mention and has no way around it. No surprise they are rare as hen’s teeth now.
Not gonna say you’re wrong about any of this, but damn do I miss how useful the bed of my small truck was with the regular cab. Even in my reg cab Ranger the bed was better than a lot of full size trucks today. And I could load it from the side.
I have had hand full of pick up trucks and execpt for one I had a topper/cap and so the bed was not open to the elements and made it so much more useful.
I like having side openings in a topper.
Also, buy a boat hook for the bed.
I have one with rubber bumpers on the end.
Trailer for open loads
Totally! 20 years ago I bought a $250 utility trailer that fits under my deck. NO need for a pick up truck any more.
Former extended cab pickup owner here, and while it was great for moving big stuff around; it wasn’t great for my weekly hauling needs of groceries and, at the time laundry (I didn’t have a working washing machine in my apartment) Adding two more doors would have made those use cases easier, until I had kids, because I’m back to not having interior room for things.
Out of the 24 vehicles I’ve owned, two were trucks, ten were sedans. The rest have been a mix of SUV/CUVs, convertibles, wagons, hatchbacks, coupes, and Jeep Shaped Things. I’ve tried everything, and sedans are my favorite. I don’t care what other people buy, it’s clearly what I buy and enjoy the most.
Crew cab trucks are just sedans with the trunk lid removed
I reject your reality, and will instead replace with something imagined, but I will still name it reality, thus avoiding facing ugly things.
I am curious how long the legs are on crossovers as the universal body style actually are though. Historically, change in preference is a constant, though the typical sedan held on from the 50s through, what, the 00s might be when its dominance really started to wane?
I don’t see anything dethroning the crossover in my lifetime, but ironically my actual answer to the truck loophole question is the return of large, RWD, V8 sedans replacing some subset of crew cab half tons.
Tall sedans, somehow.
maybe tall sedans but with added cargo space, like extend the roof all the way to the trunk or something. 😀
That’s a “coupe” CUV. Tall and a hatch so sloped it may as well be a trunk.
I’ve long maintained that crew cab pickups are just the modern replacement for the massive body on frame sedans we’ve seen in the 60s and 70s.
Crossovers will diminish in popularity if the average new car buyer’s age ever goes back below 45. When the only people with money can’t lower themselves into a sedan, CUV’s sell. When all the new cars are CUV’s, all the used cars are CUV’s. When all the cars on the road are CUV’s, it’s impossible to see out of a sedan, so there’s more incentive to buy a CUV. It’s the prisoner’s dilemma, predicated on people’s ability to bend their knees.
I’m not convinced by this argument. I know many young adults or younger childless marrieds who are still choosing CUVs, even when buying new. I am not convinced the body style was exclusively popularized by old people.
The elderly preference is definitely not the origin of the SUV’s popularity, but I believe it’s a big motivator for its enduring sales volume. I think many of the younger childless marrieds you speak of end up with CUV’s because of a combination of availability, commonality (it must be common because it’s good) and vulnerability (it feels bad to be below most other vehicles’ windowsills, I can’t even see over people’s bumpers when pulling up to an intersection). Perceived safety is a big factor, but I don’t think people are buying 3-ton vehicles to be safe from 1.5-ton vehicles, they’re buying them because they’re afraid of the other 3-ton vehicles.
The SUV was popularized by aggressive marketing as the industry realized the profit margin was greater when they could skirt emissions and sell more sheet metal with a less restricted engine. Said marketing was multi-faceted and very effective. Nowadays, the advertising has become self-propagating culture, so we don’t see it as overtly anymore. Kinda like the food pyramid, or the “diamonds are forever” motto, we don’t remember what brands told us that we need 7 seats if we have 2 kids, or that only tall vehicles can drive on a dirt road, these notions simply exist in the collective consciousness.
All that said, I do still believe that if younger people were buying more new vehicles, they’d be buying fewer SUV’s. Especially if there weren’t regulatory loopholes manipulating supply.
Ngl, Driving my Leaf around with another adult, a baby, and a large dog showed just how little space it has in it.
With 4 people in the car total you only really have enough room for carry on luggage.
Really made me understand why people buy Pickups.
‘Til you have a pickup and realize that it’s unbelievably useless for typical daily-to-day trips, like groceries, where you ultimately have to load your shopping into the back-seat to keep from having them roll, literally, everywhere in the bed.
On the contrary the pickup has a giant trunk that can hold lots of groceries and leave room in vehicle for 5-6 people. Many have a tonneau cover and dividers so things don’t roll around. Unbeatable utility
By the argument that by changing the vehicle by adding covers/dividers, one could include adding a topbox or a trailer hitch to a compact hatchback to add “unbeatable utility”
Fair enough yes, I should have included the heavy towing & hauling capability in my comment.
Dividers or boxes in the bed.
My truck came with a slot for a board near the back.
My parents (70s) appreciate the higher H-point of the their Escape over the older Montego and Grand Marquis’. It is easier for them to get in and out of, with big front door openings. Rear hatch is a reasonable height and no lifting in or out of a low trunk. Good power and decent economy from the Ecotech I4. Awd for western PA winters. These check a LOT of boxes for most of the general public.
When my daughter was a little one, it was always easier to put her in the car seat in the Grand Cherokee than either sedan. No bending or stooping over. Plus room for massive strollers, etc withbout contortion.
The only addendum to this, would be crossovers continuing to become sleeker, sportier and more car-like. At some point the definition really ceases to matter.
I don’t have the data off hand, but I’ll bet if you compare hip points of say, a current crossover CUV, you’ll find it to be shockingly similar to the hip points of the traditional family sedans and wagons that reigned supreme until the 1990s.
Honestly, I blame auto magazine journalists for an over-reliance on frankly irrelevant handling metrics in mainstream vehicle reviews.
On one hand, it’s badass that a stock Ford Fusion manages body roll like a BTCC race car. On the other hand, it shouldn’t be a surprise that Thelma down the street doesn’t care, and bought an Escape to drive to bingo instead.
I have a suspicion that, post-CAFE, manufacturers started catering to the auto-journos’ handling kink for passenger cars in a deliberate ploy to market the truck/SUV as the only body style that can offer decent ride quality. They got an opportunity to make the cars “better” by making them worse, and then make the SUV’s “better” by not changing anything at all.
Yes, because the rise of CAFE “footprint” rules coinciding with the proliferation of taller vehicles was a total coincidence, right?
This situation is completely engineered so that the domestic automakers have as few regulations to deal with as possible. They intentionally omitted their sedans from their advertising while making it look like, “Hey, everyone’s driving a crossover, you should be too!” Remember “You Know You Want a Truck” with a roomful of women saying how much more strong and manly the guy looks standing by a truck than a car? Funny how all of the just-as-likely “that guy looks like a jerk” and “he looks like he’s compensating for something” replies got left on the cutting room floor…to hell with efficiency, pedestrian safely and actual consumer choice!
The truth is that most people don’t care what they drive as long as it gets them to their destination safely without trouble. People buy crossovers because that’s what’s being offered to 90% of the market. I wouldn’t care as much if they actually continued to offer other body styles at a slightly higher price point to compensate for the lower sales. But no, to maximize customer reach, EVERYTHING has to be a crossover.
I wouldn’t expect you to understand, given that your vehicle preference is very well served here. Others of us are getting sick of being ignored by everyone below the $50K+ range.
Is your position then that every sedan was discontinued all at once and only crossovers are available now?
Because the way I remember it, sedans and crossovers were sold at the same time, even up to the present day (you can still buy sedans now!!!) and consumers voted with their wallets for the latter. Car companies didn’t discontinue sedans because they are cartoonishly evil, they sold what people wanted to buy.
As for your last comment, I don’t understand it at all. I don’t own a single crossover and never have. I do own a sedan, and I’m sorry that there are fewer of them to buy now. For some reason people insist on believing that what I say is the way I *want* things to be, and not simply a description of how they are. More coupes and sedans for sale is an outcome I desire, I just don’t see it happening. Appreciate your professed concern for my vehicular needs though.
It is quite strange that many people take a basic statement of fact as an endorsement of the idea.
A personal example of this is pretty much anytime I explain how vehicle regulations like CARB’s ACC II actual works – people think I’m a fan of it. I’m not – but that doesn’t change the reality of how the regulation is written.
I meant you (seem to be) a truck person, not that you were a proponent of the crossover takeover.
I can’t say I blame others for thinking you pointing out something means you’re happy about it, since that is commonplace on the internet. But saying “the best thing about the light truck loophole closing will be watching the comment section go into mental gymnastics over how it will cause people to like sedans again” implies you’re amused by it, and a bit of a taunt.
Frankly, I think sedans are boring unless they’re RWD. I do drive a Mazda3 sedan, but only because I don’t like how the hatchback looks. It’s all of the other kinds of cars being available from non-premium automaker being a thing of the past (for now) that I don’t like, especially when they get replaced by a crossover in the same size class and manufacturers act like, “It’s just like what you used to drive, just taller! What are you complaining about?”
Idk man. You’re creating a strawman argument.
Yes, there is some truth that manufactures (especially Ford/GM/Chrysler) prefer to sell larger, higher margin vehicles. Yes, regulations favour larger vehicles.
No, that doesn’t mean there is a conspiracy to prevent you from buying a sedan under $50k.
I’ve pasted a non-exhaustive list of sedans available in the USA created by google AI. Most of these start below 50k….
Popular Compact Sedans (Budget-Friendly)
Nissan Sentra
Hyundai Elantra
Toyota Corolla
Honda Civic
Mazda 3
Subaru Impreza
Kia K4 (New for 2025)
Popular Midsize Sedans
Toyota Camry (Best-selling sedan in U.S.)
Honda Accord
Hyundai Sonata
Nissan Altima
Kia K5
Luxury & Performance Sedans
Lexus IS, ES, LS
Cadillac CT4 & CT5
BMW 3 Series, 5 Series, 7 Series
Audi A3, A4, A6, A8
Mercedes-Benz C-Class, E-Class
Volvo S60, S90
Genesis G70, G80
Electric & Hybrid Sedans
Tesla Model 3, Model S
Lucid Air
Polestar 2
Hybrid options available for Camry, Accord, Elantra, Sonata, Civic.
American-Made Sedans (Limited Options)
Cadillac CT4, CT5, Celestiq
Dodge Charger (PHEV/EV)
I’m not just talking about sedans; I’m talking about non-sports car coupes, 3-door hatchbacks, wagons, passenger vans, 4-seat convertibles, 2+2 liftbacks, basically every kind of car that existed between the mid 1960s to around 2003 or so. Look at any full line brochure from that time period and you’ll find something for everyone.
I get that it isn’t the 20th century anymore and shareholders don’t like taking chances, but sometimes serving overlooked parts of the market can pay off massive dividends.
I’m a firm believer that it’s A reason, not THE reason.
The single largest factor is styling and what’s in vogue at the moment for family haulers. First it was big sedans, then wagons, followed by minivans, big BoF SUVs, now car platform CUVs. BoF SUVs are still around, but the rest are largely extinct. With the EV push and not having to find CAFE loopholes, a ton of EVs were small cars/wagons for aerodynamics.
In a few more years it’ll cycle around to something new, probably smaller 5dr hatchbacks given the economy, when the collective populous or marketing departments declare CUVs uncool.