Here's the first google result for "large cars regulation loophole", looks like an interesting read: https://www.wired.com/story/the-us-wants-to-close-the-suv-lo...
Sounds like it's a value-judgement free decision from manufacturers to follow the incentives from the policy as we'd predict: way cheaper and less work to make those (now pretty popular) vehicles bigger than R&D and re-tool factories to make smaller and/or more efficient.
The thing about policy is usually somebody big is warning the public ahead of time that the "affordable healthcare bill" (for another example) isn't actually affordable healthcare (it's mandated health insurance), get called debby-downers/negative/hateful, and then it happens that way anyway due to lawmaker and corp PR pushing it through while everyone else cheers. Actually reading the bill and thinking/wargaming how it will apply deterministically with basic thought experiments is discouraged. And all "sides" do this, from incentives.
I question the validity of the spirit of bills when it repeats like that so often. At some point that is the spirit of the bill.
This is of course ignoring the revolving door, regulatory capture, and lobbying angles, which are always in play some (maybe huge) %. Also predictable and deterministic, from incentives.
You didn't reason yourself into this position, so I don't think you'll be reasoned out of it.
More generally, are people doing things because they aren't stopped from doing so a loophole or not?
Are loopholes a feature or a bug? Does it depend on intentions or how it's used to be called this, or not?
More importantly, why don't judges tend to rule in the "spirit of the law" over what's actually the law, if that's so obviously the thing that should matter the most? Are you willing to sign contracts with me on that basis? And see which philosophy wins? Or do you just want to complain because I didn't put ?
There's how things are and how they "should" be and simply describing it in terms of a constellation of competing actors and overlapping interests at different layers and forces that motivate them (not always easy to tell, and I've already taken into account the whole spectrum of characterizations: intentional v not, malicious v not, passive v active) means I'm not reasoning (unlike you). Got it.
It has a bad connotation, but I guess not all things that sound like conspiracy theories are false. Another car themed topic is when Standard Oil and Firestone Tires colluded to buy up trolly lines and shut them down.
Things can be a conspiracy of common interests (and not even necessarily be bad) without involving "smoky rooms" (also known as boardrooms; but for fun on that topic, check out full history of NCR, company was nuts).
Why is it a conspiracy theory?
I'd love to cite GA's Clean Air Act as an example but the rule around qualified vehicles has been amended 11 times since it was enacted in 1996 and I can't figure out how to see previous versions of the rule.
My personal belief is this also explains American bias towards planes over rail.
I kid!
Meanwhile in the US, Ford had a small aviation division that made one plane, closed their aviation business in 1936, but during the war converted their factories to mass produce bombers (most notably the B-24).
Today manufacturing is vastly more specialised, and today's planes are drastically more complex than their predecessors. Nonetheless, even basic trucks are a very important component of modern wars(for logistics), so in case of war any automotive factory could be useful.
Half of all cars sold in the US are imported. Toyota, a Japanese company, is the most popular brand of car sold in the US.
So, yes, you can import cars all you want, they just need to follow US safety and emissions standards. These cars do not meet those requirements, so you can't import them.
If you didn't block them as imports, we'd have lots of people just go to Mexico and buy highly-polluting vehicles to save money, and our problem with smog in the border states would be much worse.
The vast majority of japanese brand cars are manufacturered in Japan and imported in the US.
> The largest automobile manufacturing facility in the world for Toyota, Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. (TMMK) is able to produce 550,000 vehicles and more than 600,000 engines per year. Two years after breaking ground in Georgetown, Kentucky,
> Where are the majority of Toyotas produced?
> The majority of Toyota vehicles you see on the road are made in your own country.
This does read like marketing material from Toyota itself so I don’t know if it’s the most trustworthy. So I look at [2]. Toyota makes 8.1M cars globally.
> the assembly of Toyota vehicles in North America came to around 1.75 million units.
So nearly 20% of worldwide production is assembled in the US. 2.3M cars are sold in the US [3]. So doesn’t seem unreasonable to say that the vast majority of Toyota cars are assembled in the US. It wouldn’t surprise me if that’s more broadly true for other Japanese manufacturers.
Do you have a better explanation of your viewpoint?
[1] https://gearshifters.org/toyota/where-does-toyota-manufactur...
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267272/worldwide-vehicle...
[3] https://www.best-selling-cars.com/brands/2021-full-year-glob...
The chickens came home to roost though, when the SEC declared a $196 million penalty in 2020 in import fines for the Ford Transit Connect, which was imported with a back seat, so it was considered a passenger vehicle for import tax reasons. Upon recieving the vans in the US, Ford removed the seats, turning it into a work van, and avoiding the import tax on work vans, something like 22%. Regardless of if it was clever of Ford or dishonest, the real point of my bringing up this story is those vans were made in Turkey.
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2021/06/03/ford-...
Nothing major is manufactured here.
The vehicles Japanese companies make for the American and US markets have no overlap. Nothing sold in America is made in Japan, and nothing sold in Japan is made in America. A lot of those vehicles are loaded up into tractor trailers and hauled off to their destination—Japanese tractor trailers that those manufacturers use aren’t large enough to haul American vehicles in Japan. Furthermore, the economics for manufacturing huge vehicles in a tiny country that can barely build for its own needs and shipping across the world wouldn’t make sense. The raw materials, energy, and real estate needed for the factories are simply far cheaper in the US.
This is clearly untrue. If this were the case, the rule wouldn't make an exception for 25+ year old cars.
I do think the rule is a little too strict, but its almost inevitable that something like it would exist.
1. https://www.cbp.gov/trade/basic-import-export/importing-car
I misread this bit, so for clarification for people like me:
Toyota's numbers are 1,144,722 vehicles produced in the US, vs a total of 2,333,262 vehicles sold.
So while Toyota is a Japanese company, half is locally produced, and the rest is imported in alignment with the US standards (that they of course have no issue to understand and meet)
This really is the crux of the issue, those kei cars simply do not meet US car regulations by the very nature of their small size and light weight.
Even in Japan, where they hail from, kei cars are a distinct category regulated separately from the rest of the car market with different build, safety, and emissions standards.
It's not some grand conspiracy to favor the domestic market or disenfranchise the used car market; the simple fact of the matter is those kei cars do not meet US regulations to be cars proper.
Trying to drive one on a highway (100kmph) strains the poor thing to it’s limit, and if you are ever in a crash with a real car you better prepare to be completely crumpled.
So, like farm vehicles in the USA?
Although I strongly favor allowing import of recent foreign cars, safety features are a much better practical objection for folks who love objecting to good things. Non-US cars would lack many many mandated features and there’s no workaround
With the current regulations, it makes the most sense to sell trucks with the longest wheelbase and largest width.
It sounds as though the 'regulations' are preventing US consumers from having a choice in trucks, which.. kinda makes no sense from what I've seen in the wide range of oversized trucks in the US.
Or something along those lines.
This is also why SUVs exist, they are legally trucks for fuel efficiency/etc.
(Quotes because the words refer to the legal definition of trucks/cars.)
In my mind I would like to see the opposite happen, and instead have a review into these "trucks" to see if they are actually what we want for the road.
There's been diagrams produced that through the ages these vehicles have been getting bigger but with less actual cargo space in them. While some in the country might want them I don't believe for a moment they are as necessary nor as useful for the cities and suburbs where parking space sizes would matter.
I want to say there was a Ford which had a fuel port on the rear of the vehicle which had to position the car further forward than usual, blocking the traffic exit while filing up the vehicle.
Now it turns out that making a truck, say, longer by 10% does not increase the fuel consumption by 10%. If you are a manufacturer, you want to maximize the ratio of the allowance based on the square footage divided by the actual measured fuel consumption of the vehicle. The sweet spot comes out on the large side. So the fuel efficiency regulation, ironically, is causing a trend that leads to more total fuel consumption.
In Australia there are a set of guidelines required for vehicle imports, they even outline pollution and safety requirements that must be met before it can be registered or driven on public roads.
On-road non import vehicles can also fail these tests and the car is not considered "road worthy".
If vehicles in the US need to be registered, why isnt this a valid solution ?
They also encourage lower speeds which could be a plus in every way.
It's just that all of the above is very expensive and a lot of work, if not impossible. Having to buy a bunch of cars just to get them crash tested is probably the most expensive part, but the rest of that isn't easy either. Coming back to the kei trucks discussed in the article, there's basically no way they're going to pass crash testing.
So it's not that it isn't a valid solution, just America has much higher standards for "road worthiness".
It's been "done" by MotoRex for R34 GTRs, though there is a bit of fuzziness as to their legality as they got shut down by the government. That's a whole other story though.
But if you're not going to use the vehicle on the road and just as a show car, or drag race car, it doesn't need to be considered road worthy and the import journey is much easier.
Its probably just that the government has been bought by the appropriate lobby and this has not happened in Australia yet.
If you know of industries or historical examples where regulatory capture was actually curtailed e.g. due to the public pushing back, or other reasons, I'd be interested to learn.
At one point, I pondered buying a Toyota previa with this head gasket issue for 3K and planed to repair it myself. Fortunately I got my sense back and bought a Renault Scenic with no issue at all, 2K and I managed to have also the timing belt replaced. Yes, internet thinks that because it is a French car, it will crumble. Well internet, so far it had no issue and its head gasket is intact.
I've seen a new 2023 4runner with weird panel gaps, unnecessarily stiff handling (compared to a 2020 model), and sunroof motors stopped working after rain.
With that situation, we usually buy cars before 2005 or so, and we pay those 3k to 4k euros in those, and usually with over 250 000 km (155 000 miles). Depending on the model, they even can be more expensive than people would think: A late 90s Nissan Terrano would cost from 6k to 7k, and my current car, a Korean one that cost about 13k in 2012, now cost from 9k to 11k (unless it has too much mileage or isn't in a decent shape).
Here in Australia I bought a 6 year old Citroen DS3 for about EUR 5.5k, and it had around 60k km on it. Now I was looking at ~3 year old Golf GTI/R, and you can get them for about a 5% discount over buying a brand new one... Why.
I don't mind the change, but my current car works and I might as well hold out for an EV like Cupra Born or Peugeot e-208 personally.
Unfortunately, a lot of people can't get over this change, so the Mk7 is considered a "peak GTI".
The vehicles meeting the requirements wouldn't be competitive on price because they'd be playing by a different set of rules.
I think there is a reasonable logic that scrapping the truck would probably be pretty bad for the environment, such that some of the standards are "water under the bridge", as it were. The rest of the logic almost certainly falls on the numbers just not mattering? I don't know.
Removing it would allow people to buy cheap cars in places like Mexico, that have loose emissions standards, and drive them around California, which has some of the most stringent emissions standards in the world. Not to mention the safety requirements issues...
I don't understand why the age of the vehicle should matter.
The 25 (well I think DOT is 20 years and EPA is 25 or vice versa) means you can import shit without it having to meet relevant federal standards. States (e.g. California) will still want to see proof it doesn't pollute too much, and CARB tests are expensive. Sates like Washington will let you register pretty much anything with wheels which is how you see a lot of non-US. market cars for sale out here with Washington plates.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-registration/new-regis...
From the California DMV's web page on direct imported vehicles: "If your direct foreign import vehicle was not originally manufactured to meet California emissions standards and DOT FMVSS, the vehicle cannot be registered in California, unless the vehicle is modified and tested under CARB’s direct import program."
Based on research that I done years ago, my understanding is that the modifications required to get many foreign vehicles to conform to California's emission standards, combined with the testing fees (which is far more expensive than the cost of a traditional biennial smog check), make it prohibitively expensive for casual buyers to legally register imported vehicles in California.
Some people get around this by registering their vehicles in other states where only the EPA 25 year rule applies; occasionally in California I do see cars with their steering wheels on the right side with Nevada or Oregon license plates. However, California generally requires its residents to have their vehicles registered in California.
One thing I'm curious about is whether California allows direct imported vehicles to be converted to run on battery-backed electric motors as a legal modification. If this is the case, then the vehicle would certainly pass the emissions test.
It's one thing to work on your car and get it to pass smog. It's another thing entirely to buy a dozen of them.
The 1950s to mid-1970s isn’t, even at the widest extreme that fits that description, 30-40 years.
The 25-year import rule here, which bans Americans from importing vehicles
from other countries unless they're 25+ years old
Of course we shouldn't be allowing people to import some pollution-spewing deathtrap that doesn't have seatbelts--the FMVSS regulations do exist for a reason--but I think we should be taking a more critical look at our regulations, especially as compared to other places at the same socioeconomic level.
perfectly safe and clean modern vehicles from other advanced nations
The UK, for instance, allows pretty much anything with wheels to be registered (e.g. the Peel). Euro NCAP is merely advisory, you can still sell/buy a death trap. Pollution as well. Want an early 90s Figaro or S-Cargo or a late 00s Hijet? Those were sold without cats or fuel injection. Want something cheap and Euro? Cool. The cheap shit is often cheap because it pollute so much it can't be driven in city centers.
A lot of the bellyaching is over cars that the manufacturers couldn't justify fixing up to meet American standards.
Obviously there are many confounding factors, but the point is if the USA really cared, it'd federally mandate more effective measures like safety inspections and emissions testing. The import restrictions are protectionism.
Also these kei class vehicles would not do well on some of the highway speed collision tests.
Moreover these Kei Trucks still have to deal with the 25% chicken tax =(.
Even the advocate highlighted in this article (Economist) admits his would probably be a “death trap” on a busy highway.
Maybe the US should create separate standards for city streets and roads with low speed limits, that could be a good way to bring down vehicle sizes. But just allowing these things just anywhere seems like a recipe for increased fatalities. For every HN reader who would use theirs wisely there are 10 average Americans who would risk maiming.
They already have!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-speed_vehicle
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicl...
But it’s a hard sell when the US has so many high speed roads. I mostly see them used for facility maintenance, parking enforcement etc.
For example, they recently became street legal in North Carolina ( https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookup/2019/H179 )
If they don't pass emissions, they cannot be legally imported. It doesn't matter whether you want to use them on private property; that private property is still within the US, and subject to EPA regs.
People think the same thing about not having to register their snowmobile, ATV or whatever if they're hooning around on their farm or private property. Nope. State environmental cops will happily step onto your property, chase you down, and cite you.
This is not an issue for most of the states where people actually own ATVs, snowmobiles and land to use those in.
I see plenty of Smarts and Fiat 500s in San Francisco
Unofficially, it's indirectly how we got the Civil Rights Act passed as a quid pro quo:
> In retrospect, audio tapes from the Johnson White House, revealed a quid pro quo unrelated to chicken. In January 1964, President Johnson attempted to convince United Auto Workers' president Walter Reuther not to initiate a strike just before the 1964 election and to support the president's civil-rights platform. Reuther, in turn, wanted Johnson to respond to Volkswagen's increased shipments to the United States.
They have a terrible reputation, primarily because they get used a lot by people who can’t afford a car.
I wish it were different, but driving a moped/Vespa on American roads is a pretty big risk.
Why do you think that is? (genuinely curious)
Sometimes anyway. It’s ignoring lanes when making a turn (e.g. drift out on a multi-lane turn) is sadly common.
It's terrifying for a foreigner, though.
The biggest difference is there are more protective laws / dedicated bike lanes and the critical mass of cyclists means you might be swatting at a bee swarm.
Note that in Spain it is legal to cross the solid white line to take over a cyclist.
Sure, It is sometimes annoying but having more cars would also created more traffic.
Apparently this is not uncommon, almost routine. The driver ran off, and the next day another person - not the real driver - turned himself in to the police. Apparently the Mafia has sone exchange program with the garbage companies, they do each other favors. Somebody will now sit in prison for decades, for a murder the detective knows he did not commit, apparently to repay some debt. And my brother-in-law's murderer is still driving garbage trucks on roads with cyclists.
I have been told that these NY garbage trucks _often_ intimidate cyclists. They are known for reckless driving and accidents. In any case, there are two reasons that the police are treating this as murder. One of the reasons is that the driver left the scene. I forget the second reason.
Plus, there just aren’t very many on the road so they stick out as unusual.
And there is a cultural obsession with big vehicles being tied to masculinity.
Which means that many (15%?) drivers would feel happy or even a little justified to blow past a moped on the road.
Not that I disbelieve you, it just seems odd. My idea of Colorado is a bunch of people in jeans and hiking boots.
This is definitely regional. In California, social status (/"masculinity") is tied to luxury brands. Especially in the metros, if you were driving a giant truck you're going to be laughed at (more often than not) as parking is going to be impossible for you and you're going to be spending 150usd/5days to fill up.
In Cascadia/Northern California, eco-drivers (Prius, Tesla, etc) are seen as the self/entitled assholes.
And in Colorado, it's people with AWD/4WD cars (especially, Subarus and Jeeps).
"Trucks" as a social status signifier is confined more to more rural and Southern states.
Of course, I don't see things this way anymore but I'm fairly confident that this is a common mindset.
Anything that is “surprising” while driving cause stress and anger reactions.
I have a small city car, and cyclists aren't in a blind spot
From personal experience it's also annoying when I get hate from car drivers who assume I deliberately use the road instead of the "bike lane" which is in fact only meant for pedestrians, but try to explain that in half a second while passing and when the official road markings are only visible with forensic tools.
I have nothing against the majority of bicyclists, but those occasional entitled few are the only ones people see; which can easily paint their opinions of all of them.
It's why you'd also be called entitled for using an elevator for your personal enjoyment, for defecating in a public pool, for playing around in a turnstile or for refusing to get vaccinated during a worldwide pandemic.
Or, you could use the rational side of your brain (the portion that most people develop in their preteens) and apply it to the abstract concept of your singular need/want being less important than another hundred's. Especially if there's a dedicated piece of infrastructure built just for you. Kind of like a bike lane 30ft away, or a restroom six feet away from the pool.
In other words, the literal definition of being entitled.
You seem to be missing the entire point. This isn’t about the 999 cyclists that use the lane, as expected; but mostly go unseen. It’s about that 1 cyclist that acts in a completely entitled manner being the one everyone sees.
Just go re-read my original post that you downvoted, I wasn’t blaming cyclists in general. My point was an occasional entitled cyclist (who 100% exists, just like entitled cagers and motorcyclists) gives a bad name to all cyclists because the good ones go mostly unseen.
Bikes are allowed to go on roads, so I don't really understand why this annoys people. I guess if you really don't like it you should advocate for legislation to change the rules.
It’s well understood that bikes can impede traffic. The world accepts this, especially on a normal day. It’s why we build special lanes for them (in addition to their safety concerns). But if you have your own special infrastructure, just for you and you’re using the other infrastructure, adding 15-30mins to hundred’s of people’s daily commutes for your convenience, that’s the literal definition of entitlement.
Yes, you’re allowed to do it; just like I’m allowed to get into the elevator and press all of the buttons for my own joy. In either case, we are assholes to most people.
I haven't seen this myself. Here in London there are lots of cyclists on the road, and it doesn't seem to interfere with car traffic. It's relatively dangerous to the cyclists, of course.
If you apply this to walking as well, you'll see how silly it is.
In your rush to accuse others of making bad faith arguments you're making just plain thoughtless ones.
The only time I've ever been annoyed at cyclists is when there was some kind of a parade procession in front of me, with cyclists fanning out across the entire road. It happened suddenly as well, which startled me moreso than making me angry.
Eventually I just moved within walking distance of work but would have loved to be able to get exercise biking 5-10 miles each way.
also FWIW this same problem exists in dense residential streets, just with the roles reversed. all those narrow intersections with no clear right of way and so many cars parked by them that you can’t see far: cars have to slow down way more for that whereas cyclists have maneuverability that lets them go a bit faster — until they catch up to a slow car on the same street. so anyway, don’t think that slowing down other classes of vehicles is a problem exclusive to bikes: on a mixed-use road every class of vehicle, including yours, will at some point require another vehicle to slow down for you.
Conversely being on a bike there is a real sense that people in cars are out to do you harm. Theres the people who try to rattle you - honk their horn at you to vent their outrage, completely unaware of how fucking loud those things are, or run you off the road, that sort of thing. The real unnerving stuff is the people who come close to murdering you by accident, just not paying attention as they maneuver their vehicles. One time I made eye contact with a woman while I pulled my bike out from under her SUV (just a foot or two under, right between the wheels on the passenger side, real lucky break for me) as she sped away - people do hit and run but I never experienced it as a driver and don't think a car ever stopped to see if I was alright let alone exchange details when I was on a bike.
I never got the impression it was a class thing. I think part of it is that a bicyclist is not at all threatening and rather vulnerable in fact. The other part I suspect is just regular old 'not one of us' shit - if you listen to people they'll basically tell you how they think they should be allowed to wantonly mistreat bicyclists because they felt mildly inconvenienced at one point.
The same people think Bicyclists aren't trying to get from A to B but are just out for a ride and happily breaking the unwritten rule. That is where the outrage comes from, they think the cyclist doesn't care about the irritation they're causing the drivers so the drivers decide to take it out on the cyclists.
If a driver runs a stop sign, it reflects badly on that driver. If a cyclist runs a stop sign, it reflects badly on ALL cyclists, etc. It works the other way around too.
In practically every country in the world, this experiment resulted in people giving money to the poorer neighbour. Only in the US did they give it to the richer neighbour.
[0]: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=DUIcycle
Primarily because they are slow and constantly get in your way, building a train of cars and making many people late for work.
I also dislike that these modified ebikes (not just the fat ones, but also some older models of vanmoof) can do 35-40 silently on a bike lane. I've had a couple close calls because they caught up to you almost three times as fast as a regular person on a regular bicycle do and, unlike the dirty mopeds, they are noiseless so you don't hear them coming with enough notice.
it's nice that vanmoof tried to help on their side, but it's something that should be enforced at the local traffic/policing level.
But I guess I feel the same in SEA where instead of electric bikes you have to contend with a sea of gas mopeds.
I currently drive a small efficient car, but I'm seriously contemplating buying an electric SUV for my next car, even though I've no use for it. I don't drive a lot, but every time I drive, I see drivers on their phones, drivers who don't signal, drivers who race the lights, drivers who don't turn their head lights on at night, and other general poor situational awareness, etc. etc. And about once a month I see someone run the red light by a _large_ margin.
By absolute measurements SUVs are worse in most metrics including safety, but alas prisoner's dilemma prevails. No amount of defensive driving on my part is gonna trump physics, if / when my tiny hatchback gets T-boned by a lifted truck.
Not in the battery power era.
IIRC, the average commute in the US is about an hour. Realistically, you probably are only going to need a few hours of charging daily.
Of course, the real problem in the US is infrastructure. It does no one any favors if you can't charge your car at your apartment, while at work, or can't find places to charge along the way. I haven't lived in the US for nearly 10 years - I moved to Norway, where electric cars are popular but the infrastructure for them has been growing too and there are places to charge your car. And that's just not possible in the US, and I doubt this is going to change in the current political atmosphere - again, rural and poor areas will be left behind at best.
Most commutes are under an hour.
It’s possible should be done, but it’s expensive and not directly profitable.
A typical American pickup truck would be a total nightmare to own while living there.
So fix your city planning issues and people will choose smaller cars.
The question is: is it street legal and can you legally get it registered to drive afterwards? Once you ask that question, tons of regulations come into play ranging from axle weight to emissions standards to safety requirements.
[1] you gotta have an ATF destructive devices license and follow state specific laws if you want to fire the main cannon
Okay, now that’s a rabbit hole if I’ve ever seen one.
Does the owner of the tank need these things? Or the driver? Or can the driver/owner just be a regular dude, but call in an expert to sit in the tank alongside them as its gunner? And do the rules change if the driver tells the gunner when to fire?
People make this excuse all the time in australia too. I have never had a problem living all over, including small country towns, without a car. Excuses are bullshit for most people.
Toyota and Subaru are present in the United States because there is an incentive to manufacture them locally, which serves as a valuable learning experience for the US.
Thus the United States' car manufacturers are either perceived as being of low quality or lagging behind their competitors, leading to the country being utilized as a third-party for inexpensive assembly.
A) most cars manufactured by European and Japanese brands are built in Mexico and direct imported via NAFTA/USMCA. The fact that Toyota and Honda choose to continue to do manufacturing in the United States is probably seen as a boon to those local communities.
B) the "low quality" image of American brands is pretty limited to the United States, like a lot of American products (California wine, for instance, is generally bottom shelf in the US but well regarded internationally). In Russia, Ford used to be their top marquee. Ford and GM are both huge in Oceania. In LATAM, they're seen as a step up from Japanese and Chinese brands and Volkswagen. In Europe, they're not generally perceived as low-quality; instead, the perception is that they're too large and fuel inefficient for most European roads/cities.
The only American brands I see in Europe are either old Chevrolets (manufactured in Germany by Opel when they were part of GM) or Jeep/Dodge/RAM trucks and similar which are owned by Stellantis (the merger of PSA (Peugeot, Citroen) and FCA (Fiat, Chrysler)) and manufactured in Italy. So they aren't know for their poor quality because they're made in the EU, in the same factories that make other known models, on the same bases (e.g. an Opel Ampera and a Chevrolet Volt are the same car, from the same factory, different badge, slightly different interior, slightly different exterior), but they are known as shit inefficient cars that mostly assholes buy.
The only American American cars (not built in the EU with an American badge slapped on the front, but produced in Mexico) that I can think of that I have seen in Europe are Chrysler PT Cruisers which are universally known as shit.
Teslas are a new phenomenon and indeed getting more and more prominent in some niches, but it seems it's mostly taxis and uber drivers, at least in France. I suppose the theatrics of Tesla's prominent CEO will significantly hamper their expansion, and pretty much most car manufacturers have caught up. Around where I live I see more Renault Zoe and VW ID.3s than Teslas for personal use.
Apparently they also made PT Cruisers for a brief period - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Steyr#Production
Last year Ford sold about 1/4 the vehicles Toyota did (they were the 6th best selling brand in Australia), while GM/Tesla didn’t make the top 10 (https://www.racv.com.au/royalauto/transport/cars/australian-...).
Historically GM (under the Holden brand) and Ford were popular because they sold locally designed and manufactured v6 sedans and utes (like small pickup trucks). These cars were always perceived as Australian, not American.
They don’t locally manufacture anymore and have lost most of the Australian market.
Ok, sure. Rephrase that to "historically, as of a decade ago", if you like.
The point was more that the low-quality association was a more American phenomenon than anything. Internationally, they were either perceived fine or unpopular for other reasons.
I find it funny (yet I see this all the time) that 2 countries have polar opposite regulations for the same topic.
I think the US needs to update a lot of rules regarding the sale, import, pollution and import of cars, including trucks. Require commercial licenses for the big stuff, have US manufacturers manufacture these practical small cars in the US according to modern US standards, and allow the import of vehicles that US manufacturers refuse to make.
Whenever you buy from aboard, that's money and jobs that are lost to the USA.
So they want to export, but not to import!
And instead of banning the imports, they just set technical standards.
Like requiring specific bumpers and car height, and pollution standards, despite the fact US roads are deadlier and the US pollutes more than anywhere else.
Other countries are a bit more optimistic about international trade, and recognize they can't do everything.
Western Europe, for exemple, has focused on high added value engineering and office jobs, to outsource production to Eastern Europe and Asia. And everyone has an engineering degree in here, so good luck to live on your factory job.
Do you have a source for this claim? In my limited searching China exceeds the US in pollution. My sources could be biased, so I would be happy to take a look at yours.
Western Europe has the issue of much lower wages though, and they keep importing cheap labour to offset the "aging crisis", rather than embracing it and labour-saving technology like Japan. Like I'd definitely rather be an engineer in the USA, if I could magically get a green card.
It would be great to live completely car-free, but absent major changes to how we plan our cities, it's just a sad reality that cars are a necessary ingredient to life in the vast majority of America. To cope with this, I'd love to be able to import a kei car or van from Japan, or micro-sized European city cars, or even some of the very small EV city cars that we see in China... but I just can't, unless I want an overpriced pile of scrap from the 1990s.
It's all so much worse when you realize that the 25-year rule is a holdover from a grey-market import scare of the mid-1980s[0]: European carmakers, namely Mercedes, BMW, and Porsche, were having trouble in the US with people importing European models of their cars. There were some valid concerns around inconsistent modifications for US safety standards, but the main issue was clearly that these grey-market imports were cheaper than buying a US model from a dealer, so profits were being missed. Instead of fixing the pricing discrepancy, they just successfully lobbied the government to enact this draconian 25-year ban, and so to this day I can't have a 2020s Japanese kei car shipped to a US port at my expense because it'd be illegal to register it.
[0] https://jalopnik.com/the-25-year-import-rules-history-is-mor...