Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
It's kinda early to tell. However the EPA is saying that they cannot enforce it and are kicking enforcement over to the DOJ it seems. I think Ford was foolish for making those engines but after seeing how they engineer stuff over the last 25-30 years, well, it just reinforces my opinion and will probably never own one again.N
Not how that works. CAA is Congressional legislation and isn't going anywhere. GM gets the 5.3 to ULEV50 with DFM and they sell that engine in other markets so there's no point in having multiple versions. Whichever way GM wants to meet the law is up to them. Big gov doesn't require cylinder deactivation but it helps meet the target. Ford went the opposite route for their volume engines (2.7 and 3.5) with smaller displacement and sell relatively few V8s now even though those have cylinder deactivation too.
What little has trickled down to us concerning the new engines for 27/28 indicates they'll still employ the deactivation technology along with cooled EGR which has been on the Ford stuff for a few years now. That's secondhand information from the bosses that attend dealer shows so take it for what it's worth.
Again, that’s not how that works. NAAQS are legislatively mandated by the Clean Air Act and subsequent revisions. Statute of limitations for CAA knowing violations is 5 years so no business operating above board is going run the risk of violating the law.It's kinda early to tell. However the EPA is saying that they cannot enforce it and are kicking enforcement over to the DOJ it seems. I think Ford was foolish for making those engines but after seeing how they engineer stuff over the last 25-30 years, well, it just reinforces my opinion and will probably never own one again.
Ok, starting to get some of what you're putting down. On a slightly different topic, what about the CAFE standards being eliminated? Wouldn't that allow GM and the others to dump AFM since that system is not directly tied to emissions standards?Again, that’s not how that works. NAAQS are legislatively mandated by the Clean Air Act and subsequent revisions. Statute of limitations for CAA knowing violations is 5 years so no business operating above board is going run the risk of violating the law.
Your 2nd paragraph requires an answer too long to type at the moment.Ok, starting to get some of what you're putting down. On a slightly different topic, what about the CAFE standards being eliminated? Wouldn't that allow GM and the others to dump AFM since that system is not directly tied to emissions standards?
Which makes me ask, are there specific emissions standards for vehicles specified in the CAA? Or does the CAA tell the government to figure it out?
CAFE forced the automakers to produce little cars nobody wanted. Then they focused on what we did want, big cars and later trucks. Then they imposed those standards on the trucks. At one point the government considered my Yukon XL as getting 59 mpg because it was FlexFuel. The other regulations basically forced the cars to disappear or become massively heavy. My 1980s G-Body cars had a curb weight of around 3200 pounds, while these new Dodge Challengers weigh 4,400 pounds.CAFE is not a bad idea just implemented poorly...
CAFE forced the automakers to produce little cars nobody wanted. Then they focused on what we did want, big cars and later trucks. Then they imposed those standards on the trucks. At one point the government considered my Yukon XL as getting 59 mpg because it was FlexFuel. The other regulations basically forced the cars to disappear or become massively heavy. My 1980s G-Body cars had a curb weight of around 3200 pounds, while these new Dodge Challengers weigh 4,400 pounds.
Well, these government agencies will not make law with their rules and regulations anymore, that's supposed to go back to Congress. Hopefully, they follow through with it.