CARB to ban diesel vehicle registrations and sales in 6 states.

[nikitis]

CARB is pushing through with their agenda to block diesel sales and registrations at DMV's within 6 states. Vermont being one of them, though they won't do it until 2026.

The rest are banning it as of yesterday. This doesn't mean you can't drive through those states as that is constitutionally protected but there are 6 states now where you can no longer register 2025 RV's and newer in those states. Older ones can still be registered.

 

[Iceni John]

CARB is a State of California government agency; it is not a federal agency with national oversight. It therefore has no jurisdiction in other states, or vice versa. If federal agencies or other states wish to adopt CARB's requirements they are free to do so, but CARB itself cannot impose them on other states. CARB's requirements, specifically the Clean Truck Check program, are posted on their website for all to see.

This looks like alarmist scare tactics, or even completely false so-called "information". Usually if something is titled "Real" (or "Genius"...) it's probably not!

Caveat Lector. The sky is NOT falling!

John

 

[desrtdog]

CARB is a State of California government agency; it is not a federal agency with national oversight. It therefore has no jurisdiction in other states, or vice versa. If federal agencies or other states wish to adopt CARB's requirements they are free to do so, but CARB itself cannot impose them on other states. CARB's requirements, specifically the Clean Truck Check program, are posted on their website for all to see.

This looks like alarmist scare tactics, or even completely false so-called "information". Usually if something is titled "Real" (or "Genius"...) it's probably not!

Caveat Lector. The sky is NOT falling!

John

Thank you, John! This is a prime example of why you shouldn’t rely on YouTube (TikTok, etc) for your news…

 

[cadillackid]

CARB is a State of California government agency; it is not a federal agency with national oversight. It therefore has no jurisdiction in other states, or vice versa. If federal agencies or other states wish to adopt CARB's requirements they are free to do so, but CARB itself cannot impose them on other states. CARB's requirements, specifically the Clean Truck Check program, are posted on their website for all to see.

This looks like alarmist scare tactics, or even completely false so-called "information". Usually if something is titled "Real" (or "Genius"...) it's probably not!

Caveat Lector. The sky is NOT falling!

John

there are other states choosing to use CARB as their guide.. most pliticians who are enacting these things have zero idea what a diesel engine even is.. they simply hear from states like california which has long been the bellweather for emission controls.. simply because of the serious SMOG issues in the late 60's and early 70's, they saw the smog issue largely solved by CARB compliant vehicles coming onto the scene since the mid 70s.. southern california was the worst because of its geography and weather patterns thus it became the gold standard for others who wanted guidance.. good or bad its just how it came about... so its been the standard for other (esp blue) states to follow.. they assume if california does it or needs it that everyone does... car manufacturers follow california as well... while the CAFE standard (its assumed that better MPG automatically equals lower emissions) .. is federal and applies to anyone sellign cars in the USA, CARB is simply a guideo thers choose to follow and copy word for word regardless of. that state or city's weather patterns and geography.

 

[PorchDog]

We may be in the denial stage of grief....

Anger will be next.

 

[nikitis]

First off I never said it was going federal, so not sure where that is coming from. Maybe the guy in the video thought that but I didn't mention that. However Other states are beginning to adopt it. Eventually these things become standards across states which would be bad if that occurred.

With the recent election and his stance on allowing diesels we're likely safe for awhile as he believes we need diesels and gasoline as well as EV's. Each has their place, one shouldn't dominate over the other. I think this is sensible use. We're against CARB because it's outright wanting to ban diesels as it's ultimate goal and we disagree with that sentiment.

And Cadillackid is right, we know from history that these things always start out like this. A frog that boils slowly eventually gets boiled.

 

[Albatross]

Increasing MPG does reduce emissions.


The basic idea is that there are two trains of thought to reducing emissions; the first is sort of "We can't imagine a way to get the economy of a pickup truck above 16 MPG, so we're going to reduce the amount of pollutants coming out of the tailpipe per volume-unit of fuel. This is the thought process behind most of the emissions equipment here in the US.



The Europeans, with their higher cost of fuel, said essentially the opposite, "If we increase the fuel-economy, not only does the cost to operate the vehicle decrease, but with less fuel being burnt, the pollution should also decrease as well". And this is why (actual) European vehicles will get better gas mileage and also have less pollution than the same or equivalent American version would produce. Sometimes these differences are smaller, but sometimes they're huge; for example, there is a production diesel engine used in the Ford Ranger that is available everywhere else in the world except for here in the States that has been tested to get as high as 37 MPG. In a midsize pickup that here, using gas, can at best get something like 24 MPG. Now sure, they're using different fuels, so a gallon of diesel will probably put out more pollution than a gallon of gasoline, but that's still pretty extreme.

 

[PorchDog]

Well, way back in 1987-- a one liter, 3 cylinder, non turbo charged gasoline engine-- no direct injection, no variable valve timing, no cylinder deactivation, got really good gas mileage--it was even carbureted!!

From Google---

The 1987 Geo Metro XFi was originally rated by the EPA at 53 miles per gallon (mpg) in the city and 58 mpg on the highway when using regular gasoline. However, the EPA later changed their testing methods and downgraded the car's rating to 43 mpg in the city and 52 mpg on the highway. Some Metro enthusiasts have reported getting as high as 75 mpg.

And I was around when this was going on...it's true--

Now, with all the junk the EPA has forced on us, we still can't match those old numbers... and the long term reliability has gone to pot... (not taking into account we have ethanol infused gasoline now...)

 

[cadillackid]

Well, way back in 1987-- a one liter, 3 cylinder, non turbo charged gasoline engine-- no direct injection, no variable valve timing, no cylinder deactivation, got really good gas mileage--it was even carbureted!!

From Google---

The 1987 Geo Metro XFi was originally rated by the EPA at 53 miles per gallon (mpg) in the city and 58 mpg on the highway when using regular gasoline. However, the EPA later changed their testing methods and downgraded the car's rating to 43 mpg in the city and 52 mpg on the highway. Some Metro enthusiasts have reported getting as high as 75 mpg.

And I was around when this was going on...it's true--

Now, with all the junk the EPA has forced on us, we still can't match those old numbers... and the long term reliability has gone to pot... (not taking into account we have ethanol infused gasoline now...)

part of it is all the other stuff on cars.. people today act like 40 MPG is really good on a non hybrid.. yet we had the Metro.. I had a Renault Lecar (1980 model).. it had A/C.. that was it.. it was a little car with a stick and a 40 amp alternator that never had an issue keeping its battery charged.. I got in the low 40s easily in that car..



now cars are bigger and heavier... anything the size of a Lecar or even a mid 80s escort is not in existence.. esp in the US...



now theres all kinds of extra weight too.. bigger car heavier.. reinforced this that and the other to increase safety makes it heavier.. airbags, 16 computers, screens, electric power steering, cameras, sensors, ECM,BCM,TCM, you name it.. to where a 160 amp alternator is standard on everything.... all that extra stuff means extra power needed.. takes more fuel... so they have to get better to increase MPG.. at some point its not sustainable.. at some point you sacrifice longevity (a 3.0 litre twin turbo moving a monster size SUV (grand wagoneer or a ram) is turning out to not be so reliable.... malibu's having issues at 80-90K with the 2.0 turbo that gives you 250 HP...



the reliability failures and soon the inability for manufacturers to meet the standards pretty much ensures that everyone will be driving EV regardless of the practicality... one can say in the US that trump could roll back the CAFE standard and curb the EPA but reality is any of that is temporary as the manufacturers look ahead in the future and the pathway is to create more and more stringent standards that eventually cant be met regardless of what the public wants....

 

[UFO pilot]

The cheapest diesel Class A or Super C in that video starts at like $550K. Anybody on Skoolie running out to buy one?

 

[Albatross]

Well, way back in 1987-- a one liter, 3 cylinder, non turbo charged gasoline engine-- no direct injection, no variable valve timing, no cylinder deactivation, got really good gas mileage--it was even carbureted!!

From Google---

The 1987 Geo Metro XFi was originally rated by the EPA at 53 miles per gallon (mpg) in the city and 58 mpg on the highway when using regular gasoline. However, the EPA later changed their testing methods and downgraded the car's rating to 43 mpg in the city and 52 mpg on the highway. Some Metro enthusiasts have reported getting as high as 75 mpg.

And I was around when this was going on...it's true--

Now, with all the junk the EPA has forced on us, we still can't match those old numbers... and the long term reliability has gone to pot... (not taking into account we have ethanol infused gasoline now...)

Oh yeah, one of my favorite vehicles I've ever owned was my '92 Ford Festiva--it had EFI so it was making something like 83 HP instead of the carburated 65 or whatever. I bought it for a dollar and a pack of smokes, and after changing a couple of fusible links, I would up driving it home. I wound up getting something like 55 MPG in that thing, and averaging about a dozen parking tickets a year.

 

[nikitis]

Where have all the small trucks gone? The Toyota Hilux's?

Oh that's right they are still on the road 40 years later, running with no issues.

There's a deep seeded reason small trucks have been pushed out, they are cheap, and enable people to get work done, and last forever. The car manufacturers don't make enough money from you because they are greedy so they make larger trucks and charge 80-120k for them, and they don't even last 10 years without major issues because they want to make money on fixing them as well.

It's not what the American people want really.

All of these reasons listed here by you guys and myself are the deep seeded reasons I'm against programs like CARB, because they are full of &$*#.

 

[cadillackid]

Where have all the small trucks gone? The Toyota Hilux's?

Oh that's right they are still on the road 40 years later, running with no issues.

There's a deep seeded reason small trucks have been pushed out, they are cheap, and enable people to get work done, and last forever. The car manufacturers don't make enough money from you because they are greedy so they make larger trucks and charge 80-120k for them, and they don't even last 10 years without major issues because they want to make money on fixing them as well.

It's not what the American people want really.

All of these reasons listed here by you guys and myself are the deep seeded reasons I'm against programs like CARB, because they are full of &$*#.

so from several people who are much higher paygrade than me.. stellantis was averaging 30K in PROFIT per truck they are selling overall.. (RAM).. no wonder a BASE ram 1500 is a 45K truck.... over 100K for a loaded crewcab diesel... they are (were) turning more profit than a small truck would sticker for.... now they have begun discounting them heavily.. the RAM im going after (or maybe a jeep truck) is being DISCOUTNED by 15K so its at least reasonable vs the sticker where i told the sales guy to get lost...



did the american people completely not want small trucks? yeah unfortunately truth.. its a very NICHE thing.. a regular cab ranger was hardly selling any units when it was discontinued (befre its reincarnation as a crew cab).. as much as you hear comlaints of no low-cost trucks, they dont sell when they are here... alot of people said "ford make a regular cab maverick long bed" but the overall polling stated they would likely only sell 10% of the number of units they sell in the maverick crew cab so they didnt build one.. people want their trucl to be their family mobile and thus want it big and luxurious vs having "moms mini van and dad's work truck".

 

[Albatross]

Well, a lot of it is because of the protection rackets that are ran to protect the Big Companies from having to deal with newer startups. We saw back in the '80s with the DeLorean Motor Company, and again with Musk's launch of Tesla Car Company. Some of these issues are primarily to do with the Big Businesses taking matters into their private hands, as happened with DeLorean, but most of it now has to do with regulations put into place by the Big Car Cos, with some input from what We, The People were actually asking for.



The Low Volume Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's Act in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-114publ94/pdf/PLAW-114publ94.pdf), passed in 2015 allegedly allowed for companies to make up to 325 (replica) vehicles per year, but it wasn't until 2019 that the NHTSA finally got around to passing the regulations, after SEMA sued in 2018, and the government was supposed to do it's job in 2016. And it wasn't until 2021, six years after the law was passed, and five years after the job was supposed to have been finalized. That's just one law that I actually know about. There are many, many others that are all designed to either make it a serious problem for new automakers to start up, make it prohibitively expensive to do so, or to make other kinds of trouble for players who aren't already established.



The EPA is another agency that is making things a problem, which is actually why American vehicles keep getting larger and larger. During Obama, a law was passed mandating that the fuel-economy of vehicles keep going up incrementally, but the fuel economy is also related to size of the vehicle, so because we are currently up against a wall the economy based on the number of downstream-patches that are required, such as catalytic converters, DEF/DPF juice, EGR, and all the other stuff that is "required" but the fuel economy could be better and the engine could be cleaner if it were removed means that the auto makers can "cheat" the economy algorithm by simply making the cars larger. This also enhances their pocket-books, since larger cars can fit more "luxury" in it, and hey, since you're already going to be paying $50K for an "econo-" midsize, why not just add another $12K to it and get the super-premium LX package on top of that.


The regulations need to go away, and we need to get back to basics and be able to redesign something from the ground-up, and focus specifically on simply what is needed for the cleanest bang, and then balance the power to the weight.

 

[cadillackid]

Well, a lot of it is because of the protection rackets that are ran to protect the Big Companies from having to deal with newer startups. We saw back in the '80s with the DeLorean Motor Company, and again with Musk's launch of Tesla Car Company. Some of these issues are primarily to do with the Big Businesses taking matters into their private hands, as happened with DeLorean, but most of it now has to do with regulations put into place by the Big Car Cos, with some input from what We, The People were actually asking for.



The Low Volume Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's Act in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-114publ94/pdf/PLAW-114publ94.pdf), passed in 2015 allegedly allowed for companies to make up to 325 (replica) vehicles per year, but it wasn't until 2019 that the NHTSA finally got around to passing the regulations, after SEMA sued in 2018, and the government was supposed to do it's job in 2016. And it wasn't until 2021, six years after the law was passed, and five years after the job was supposed to have been finalized. That's just one law that I actually know about. There are many, many others that are all designed to either make it a serious problem for new automakers to start up, make it prohibitively expensive to do so, or to make other kinds of trouble for players who aren't already established.



The EPA is another agency that is making things a problem, which is actually why American vehicles keep getting larger and larger. During Obama, a law was passed mandating that the fuel-economy of vehicles keep going up incrementally, but the fuel economy is also related to size of the vehicle, so because we are currently up against a wall the economy based on the number of downstream-patches that are required, such as catalytic converters, DEF/DPF juice, EGR, and all the other stuff that is "required" but the fuel economy could be better and the engine could be cleaner if it were removed means that the auto makers can "cheat" the economy algorithm by simply making the cars larger. This also enhances their pocket-books, since larger cars can fit more "luxury" in it, and hey, since you're already going to be paying $50K for an "econo-" midsize, why not just add another $12K to it and get the super-premium LX package on top of that.


The regulations need to go away, and we need to get back to basics and be able to redesign something from the ground-up, and focus specifically on simply what is needed for the cleanest bang, and then balance the power to the weight.

great read!! thanks for writing this out.. I never realized that size had anything to do with cafe standards... I just figured it was simply an average they had to hit across all their vehicles sold.. I know years ago pickup trucks 3/4 ton and up had different rules than 1/2 ton and under as they were considerd commercial vs consumer.. thus werent included.. alas why international scouts went away.. they had no other consumer vehicles to offset their average at the time.. coupled with the bad economy of the late 70s they made the decision to drop it knowing there was going to be stringent MPG standards upcoming.. that all slowed down some under republican control in the early 80s but obviously was brought right back heavy duty later on.

 

[Albatross]

great read!! thanks for writing this out.. I never realized that size had anything to do with cafe standards... I just figured it was simply an average they had to hit across all their vehicles sold.. I know years ago pickup trucks 3/4 ton and up had different rules than 1/2 ton and under as they were considerd commercial vs consumer.. thus werent included.. alas why international scouts went away.. they had no other consumer vehicles to offset their average at the time.. coupled with the bad economy of the late 70s they made the decision to drop it knowing there was going to be stringent MPG standards upcoming.. that all slowed down some under republican control in the early 80s but obviously was brought right back heavy duty later on.

This is also why every car manufacturer has some form of "egg-mobile", shaped like a backwards wing, because it is essentially the most aerodynamic shape, and also why they keep coming out with more passenger cars that all look exactly like each other. Seriously, go to ford.com, chevy.com, honda.com, hyundai.com, zoom out a little bit, and tell me how different these cars actually are. They are all the old backwards-wing "egg-shape" of the Ford Fiesta but scaled up; they might be taller, they might be longer, but they're pretty much all the same vehicle in profile.


This is because it's one of the most aerodynamic shapes that is able to work with the drivetrain packages and 2,000 lbs of safety equipment and up to 1,000 lbs of luxury and lifestyle equipment that is essentially required to be in or on vehicles produced these days.


And because the standards are adjusted to the "kind" of vehicle, and because SUVs were originally built on pickup platforms instead of car's unibody design, they were kept closer to the pickup fuel-economy standards, so it's easier to make more and more "SUV"s or "crossover" vehicles and compete against the fuel economy standards. Also, since most women never really know what they want, ages ago, most women preferred cars because that's what they were used to, going all the way back to the horse and buggy when the "trunk" was actually a piece of her storage furniture that was strapped to the back of the buggy instead of something built into the back of the vehicle. After experiencing life with some kind of SUV or hatchback, most people wound up preferring the space, especially if it didn't really cost them much more to buy or to operate. And there's something to be said for the height advantage in traffic. And the fact that larger/heavier vehicles tend to be safer in a crash, it's a fairly easy sell--especially if it also knocks off 10-15 MPG from the target that a manufacturer has to hit in economy.


I just struggle to get over the fact that a modern half-ton pickup is as large or larger than some of the old 1-tons I used to drive growing up. And the base model costs a relative fortune compared to what you get, and still gets something like 16 MPG, but if you upgrade to something that costs almost as much as what my parents paid for their home, you can get something with all kinds of insane cylinder-deactivation stuff that allows you to get up to 40-50 MPG in a pickup truck.



But mainly what I hate the most is how it's all designed to be disposable. When the seals go bad on the headlight system, the only way you'll usually notice is either a fogged-up headlight, water in the light, or it stops working; and the only way to fix that is to replace the whole unit, which if you're lucky comes in at something like $600 per headlight. And there's a whole series of pickup trucks where to do anything more serious than changing the oil requires the removal of the entire pickup cab as per the motor's manual. Tell me your trying to screw me without telling me that you're trying to screw me.

 

[s2mikon]

I think that vehicle classification is a better word choice than size, but in the end it has the same effect. The minivans got to be classified as light trucks instead of sedans or station wagons. Same with SUV's. When OBD II came on line fuel mileage took a big hit because of the new cat protocols.

 

[turf]

Colorado is a CARB state and those regs have been in place for a while.... the companies choose not to comply. they can sell their rv somewhere else. Denver has a real air pollution problem and doing nothing isnt an option.

i got a new to me half ton truck this summer. i wanted to like the mid size trucks, but, nope, couldn't see myself driving one.

i will brag on my full size fuel mileage though.... the baby duramax is rated for 28mpg. often im in the 30's. so damned evil diesel with def for the win!

had my bus transmission gone out a year or 2 from now.... i'd be looking at an e-axle conversion and not a new trans.

 

[#1FordFan]

Well, way back in 1987-- a one liter, 3 cylinder, non turbo charged gasoline engine-- no direct injection, no variable valve timing, no cylinder deactivation, got really good gas mileage--it was even carbureted!!

From Google---

The 1987 Geo Metro XFi was originally rated by the EPA at 53 miles per gallon (mpg) in the city and 58 mpg on the highway when using regular gasoline. However, the EPA later changed their testing methods and downgraded the car's rating to 43 mpg in the city and 52 mpg on the highway. Some Metro enthusiasts have reported getting as high as 75 mpg.

And I was around when this was going on...it's true--

Now, with all the junk the EPA has forced on us, we still can't match those old numbers... and the long term reliability has gone to pot... (not taking into account we have ethanol infused gasoline now...)

I can match those 52mpg numbers in my 2016 Fiesta. It has a 1.6L engine. All I have to do is set the cruise at about 55mph on level ground and I’m there.
IT DOES NOT HAVE Direct injection. It is NOT. A hybrid car. It gets these same numbers on gas- or gas/ethanol (10%)
It is quite a bit safer than those old metros.
Yes I remember the metros they were not that great for reliability. I have not seen one driven in many years.

 

[cadillackid]

I can match those 52mpg numbers in my 2016 Fiesta. It has a 1.6L engine. All I have to do is set the cruise at about 55mph on level ground and I’m there.
IT DOES NOT HAVE Direct injection. It is NOT. A hybrid car. It gets these same numbers on gas- or gas/ethanol (10%)
It is quite a bit safer than those old metros.
Yes I remember the metros they were not that great for reliability. I have not seen one driven in many years.

speed is a big part of those older cars.. they were built for 55 MPH speed limits that were the required maximum until the mid / late 80s...



my dad talked about taking mom's new (back in 2006) honda accord stick shift and getting 48 MPG driving 55 as a test... it was in the summer and they had the air conditioner on... and a comfortable ride being in an accord..


our IH scout diesel (1980) got 28 MPG because we maxxed out at 60 and dad bought it geared for the highway(4 speed stick)... driving that scout at 65 killed the mileage down to the low 20's.. my modern HEMI ram can do better than the diesel scout at 65 with all of its modern VVT and cylinder deactivation... so modern vehicles do have the ability to beat out the older ones on occasion..