In the '70s the US changed emission standards to be quite a bit more strict, as part of the Clean Air Act of 1970. The problem of smog in major cities was getting out of hand.
Also in the '70s there were periods of gas shortages and high prices due to world events that messed up oil markets, such as the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973 and the Iranian Revolution in 1979. This led to demand for more efficient cars.
US automakers were slow to respond. The often just retrofitted existing engines with emission control equipment that significantly lowered performance and reliability.
Japanese automakers, who at that time had only a small share of the US market and were not really taken seriously by most consumers, were also dealing with new strict emission standards in Japan. But they responded by quickly designing new engines designed with low emissions and better mileage. And they exported those cars to the US.
By the time US automakers finally started making new design decent low emission cars with better gas mileage instead of badly retrofitting existing designs those Japanese makers had established with the public a reputation for making reliable, efficient, low emissions, and affordable cars.
Some people said the Japanese cars were only affordable because of cheap labor in Japan. (Japan in the '70s was like China is today when it comes to manufacturing). But then the Japanese
car companies started manufacturing many models in the US, showing that affordable, high quality, reliable cars that met emission standards and were efficient could be made with US labor.
I wonder if we are going to see the same thing with EVs?
> The Chinese cars are taking over here: it’s a product people want at a price they like
If you can hazard a guess, which make and model is the “Tesla killer” for EVs, if such a car exists.
I frequently suggest to folks in the US (where I’m from) that BYDs in the US would change the competitive landscape, but I can’t reliably point to a make/model or two that they can check out online.
They basically did the same thing but with foreign motorcycles. Harley lobbied haaaarrddd to get restrictions put on them. Harley got their way and still screwed it up, which left Americans paying more. Harley just declares bankruptcy and starts over cuz their cult of boomers will always buy a new hog with lots of chrome and saddlebags.
> A GM spokeswoman said the company has long argued that the U.S. should have a single emissions mandate and that any regulations should factor in market demand.
Yes, let us stipulate that uniform regulations that disregard the federalist design of the constitution are more convenient and profitable for huge corporations with top flight lobbyists to write the one law to be enforced from sea to shining sea.
> Rep. Laura Gillen, a Democrat from New York, one of the states to adopt the mandate, said she supports the goal of reducing emissions but that the timeline is “out-of-touch with reality” and an undue burden on consumers facing a cost-of-living crisis.
US consumers are facing hardship directly caused by overtly erratic tariffing. US ICE makers are seeking protections. Consumers will not have smaller vehicles nor the affordable EVs they could use.
The air and water are fine, we never pollute, climate change is a silly leftist slogan, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
There will be bipartisan support for this (only 164 Ds voted against repeal in the house) - as long as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Illinois matter, California's EV mandate will be undermined.
Neither party dares alienate the UAW or Teamsters, and thousands of automotive employees.
HN needs to reconcile whether they support unions or whether they support EVs. It's a one or the other decision at this point in the US.
Amongst the younger (Gen Z/Gen Alpha) generations, the choice is unions due to idealism (despite havint positive sentiment for EVs). Amongst high earning members of Gen X (which I think seems to represent HN), the choice appears to be EVs.
I have recently moved from US to Australia and it is 100% clear to me the US automakers will get absolutely crushed by the Chinese companies if/when they are able to access US market.
Especially EVs and PHEVs. This place is awash with them, they are cars people want at the right price.
> Even in California, America’s EV market leader, sales are below the state’s own targets. Under the rule, in 2026, sales of zero-emissions vehicles should account for 35% of all vehicle sales. Right now, they account for 20% of the state’s automobile market.
Yikes. Sounds like if this mandate doesn’t get changed, Californians are staring down the barrel of a huge car buying crunch in ~7yrs, as people realize they only have a few more years to buy a gas vehicle.
I’m a fan of EVs - I think every family should have one or two, but I’d also never want to be without a gas vehicle. Not having the option to buy one under any circumstances is pretty onerous.
This is why the automakers will win. People are turning on Tesla. And the rest of automakers offerings aren’t half as good. Automakers can put on the squeeze now by just continuing to let this market segment languish and then the legislature will have to do something in 2035 when not near enough people are switching to EV and there hasn’t been near enough infrastructure built due to the segment underperforming expectations and not getting sufficient infrastructure investment.
It was one thing to mandate emissions when it was just a question of a cleaner gas car. We are retooling with evs effectively. I think the legislature bit off more than they can chew with this unless they start heavily subsidizing this industry themselves maybe even making a public ev company. Hard to do in times of austerity when everything that presently exists is in need of money let alone new expensive ideas.
> And the rest of automakers offerings aren’t half as good.
This was true maybe even as recently as 5 years ago, but it certainly isn’t true now.
Tesla, at the top end, hasn’t been an attractive luxury proposition at least since the Hyundai Genesis & Mercedes EVs started rolling out. They had a shot at capturing the mid- to low-end market, but it looks like they’re in the process of blowing that as well.
> Hard to do in times of austerity [..]
The average American’s lifestyle is hardly austere — it _is_ precarious for very many (most?), but I don’t think that’s the same thing.
You can now get refurb EVs (e.g. a Hyundai Ionia) with <50k miles for <$15k, and that’s in a not-inexpensive part of the US (northeast).
Over the course of the next 10 years that used market is going to only grow, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that a battery swap will be less costly than the sorts of overhauls high-mileage gasoline cars require so there _will_ be a solid used market.
The fact that the existing automakers do not have competitive offerings when the model S came out in 2012 is entirely their own fault. For not figuring out where the wind is blowing and massively reorganizing their entire company, they deserve to die to Tesla, BYD, Xpeng, Nio, and everyone else who figured out how to build a usable EV. They could’ve also built charging infrastructure at their own expense, like Tesla did before the charging infrastructure tax credits.
I was in Beijing last year. Many, many EVs on the road, far more than the Bay Area. About half of China's Market is EV's now[1]
The Chinese Government backed up their mandate with money. Lots of money, allocated well, over a long period of time. In the absence of that sustained political will, I think this initiative would have succumbed the infighting and finger-pointing that the article above describes.
Readit News
In the '70s the US changed emission standards to be quite a bit more strict, as part of the Clean Air Act of 1970. The problem of smog in major cities was getting out of hand.
Also in the '70s there were periods of gas shortages and high prices due to world events that messed up oil markets, such as the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973 and the Iranian Revolution in 1979. This led to demand for more efficient cars.
US automakers were slow to respond. The often just retrofitted existing engines with emission control equipment that significantly lowered performance and reliability.
Japanese automakers, who at that time had only a small share of the US market and were not really taken seriously by most consumers, were also dealing with new strict emission standards in Japan. But they responded by quickly designing new engines designed with low emissions and better mileage. And they exported those cars to the US.
By the time US automakers finally started making new design decent low emission cars with better gas mileage instead of badly retrofitting existing designs those Japanese makers had established with the public a reputation for making reliable, efficient, low emissions, and affordable cars.
Some people said the Japanese cars were only affordable because of cheap labor in Japan. (Japan in the '70s was like China is today when it comes to manufacturing). But then the Japanese car companies started manufacturing many models in the US, showing that affordable, high quality, reliable cars that met emission standards and were efficient could be made with US labor.
I wonder if we are going to see the same thing with EVs?
I noted below that I have recently moved from US to Australia
The Chinese cars are taking over here: it’s a product people want at a price they like
GM wants to monetize yesterday’s market, and are just going to fall farther behind.
When these cars eventually come in, EV mandate or not, the US car companies will get crushed
If you can hazard a guess, which make and model is the “Tesla killer” for EVs, if such a car exists.
I frequently suggest to folks in the US (where I’m from) that BYDs in the US would change the competitive landscape, but I can’t reliably point to a make/model or two that they can check out online.
They basically did the same thing but with foreign motorcycles. Harley lobbied haaaarrddd to get restrictions put on them. Harley got their way and still screwed it up, which left Americans paying more. Harley just declares bankruptcy and starts over cuz their cult of boomers will always buy a new hog with lots of chrome and saddlebags.
Deleted Comment
Yes, let us stipulate that uniform regulations that disregard the federalist design of the constitution are more convenient and profitable for huge corporations with top flight lobbyists to write the one law to be enforced from sea to shining sea.
US consumers are facing hardship directly caused by overtly erratic tariffing. US ICE makers are seeking protections. Consumers will not have smaller vehicles nor the affordable EVs they could use.
The air and water are fine, we never pollute, climate change is a silly leftist slogan, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
How about $100/ton of CO2.
At 30 mpg that's 60 tons of CO2 so $6k.
Deleted Comment
Neither party dares alienate the UAW or Teamsters, and thousands of automotive employees.
HN needs to reconcile whether they support unions or whether they support EVs. It's a one or the other decision at this point in the US.
Amongst the younger (Gen Z/Gen Alpha) generations, the choice is unions due to idealism (despite havint positive sentiment for EVs). Amongst high earning members of Gen X (which I think seems to represent HN), the choice appears to be EVs.
Especially EVs and PHEVs. This place is awash with them, they are cars people want at the right price.
Yikes. Sounds like if this mandate doesn’t get changed, Californians are staring down the barrel of a huge car buying crunch in ~7yrs, as people realize they only have a few more years to buy a gas vehicle.
I’m a fan of EVs - I think every family should have one or two, but I’d also never want to be without a gas vehicle. Not having the option to buy one under any circumstances is pretty onerous.
Yay the free market, hey?
The automakers in the US mostly want to fight a war two wars ago. They’re careening towards international irrelevance fast with this crap.
And we’ll either be dominated by the players that saw the truth, or stuck with overpriced protectionist crap.
It was one thing to mandate emissions when it was just a question of a cleaner gas car. We are retooling with evs effectively. I think the legislature bit off more than they can chew with this unless they start heavily subsidizing this industry themselves maybe even making a public ev company. Hard to do in times of austerity when everything that presently exists is in need of money let alone new expensive ideas.
This was true maybe even as recently as 5 years ago, but it certainly isn’t true now.
Tesla, at the top end, hasn’t been an attractive luxury proposition at least since the Hyundai Genesis & Mercedes EVs started rolling out. They had a shot at capturing the mid- to low-end market, but it looks like they’re in the process of blowing that as well.
> Hard to do in times of austerity [..]
The average American’s lifestyle is hardly austere — it _is_ precarious for very many (most?), but I don’t think that’s the same thing.
You can now get refurb EVs (e.g. a Hyundai Ionia) with <50k miles for <$15k, and that’s in a not-inexpensive part of the US (northeast).
Over the course of the next 10 years that used market is going to only grow, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that a battery swap will be less costly than the sorts of overhauls high-mileage gasoline cars require so there _will_ be a solid used market.
The Chinese Government backed up their mandate with money. Lots of money, allocated well, over a long period of time. In the absence of that sustained political will, I think this initiative would have succumbed the infighting and finger-pointing that the article above describes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_industry_in_C...