> ... it is very easy to end up with regulations that
> when taken together are not feasible.
It is a classic prisoner's dilemma problem. If everyone is honest, you make cars that are good for the environment but lack the performance, if one can "defect" while looking like they haven't (aka they cheat) they take all the money.
And yet they get caught (and always will) and lose the long game.
Sayonara, VW.....
Big corporations used to have bean-counters that calculated the cost of getting caught and they cheated only when the risk vs. damages had a cost upside.
Corporations now just don't appear to give a flying fuck about what lands in the lap of the next CEO. They'll get their golden parachute, right?
1. Elevated driving platform.
2. Room for extra passengers and cargo.
I agree that the vast majority of pickups (utes) sold in the U.S. are much larger than necessary for their usage and in comparison with pickups sold outside of North America.
3. A slanted liftgate that sacrifices cargo space so their crossover doesn't like their parents' station wagon and/or minivan.
It was the emissions restrictions that pushed so many consumers to SUVs in the first place.
After that it was only vehicles with hinged doors and 8 passengers so...SUV or commuter van.
edit: also I live in a northern state in the middle of nowhere. 4 wheel drive and high clearance were not insignificant factors for us.
If you want two bench seats in the 21st century your options are basically all SUVs
Americans for the most part do not like diesel cars. It's really not even worth testing them.
Trucks are another matter, but they have different emissions standards.
I'm not taking the blame out of carmakers, but it is very easy to end up with regulations that when taken together are not feasible.
Imaginary example: you need a capital/asset ratio of at least 20% (which means capital/liab. of at least that, by definition). But you also require at least 30% of the liabilities to be long-term debt. Another regulation says that 50% of loans must be financed with deposits, and so on. The end effect is that there is little margin for these banks to decide on their liabilities. At the extreme, if we impose unfeasible restrictions, they might just end up skirting some of the rules.