AD #2319 – California Ready to Fight EPA, Affordable AVs Coming Soon, New GMC Off-Road Brand to See Entire Lineup

March 27th, 2018 at 11:25am

Runtime: 6:10

0:28 California May Not Comply with New Regs.
1:10 Waymo Says AVs Will Be Affordable Soon
2:39 Honda Reveals Production Insight
3:19 New GMC Off-Road Brand to See Entire Lineup
4:51 Lynk & Co. Debuts New Small Crossover
5:20 New Toyota Yaris Drops iA Badging

Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone , Dow Automotive Systems and Lear Corporation.

»Subscribe to Podcast |

5661 rss-logo-png-image-68050 stitcher-icon youtube-logo-icon-65475

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website: WardsAuto.com

27 Comments to “AD #2319 – California Ready to Fight EPA, Affordable AVs Coming Soon, New GMC Off-Road Brand to See Entire Lineup”

  1. Chuck Grenci Says:

    If the regs for emissions aren’t grossly different wouldn’t the auto-makers just produce at the more stringent standards (and maybe save with the economy of scale) instead of running two separate models down the assembly line. Anyway, I would think, publicity wise, it would be smart for the manufacturers’ to advertise (to their benefit) that they care, and are meeting the most stringent standards that they can attain throughout the country.

  2. Lisk Says:

    Glad to see GMC will get their own version of the Silverado Trail Boss. Just what we need, another pickup that was too high already, now another 2 inches higher.

  3. phred Says:

    AV affordable? Yeah just like the Tesla is affordable…to a few. And the 350,000 mile car!! Think maintenance to achieve 100,000 even now. If you neglect maintenance, the car stops!

  4. Lex Says:

    How can a single state dictate to the entire country emission standards? Maybe California should early adopt a full EV standard and that not ICE vehicles can be purchased, registered or put into service in California after 2020.

  5. Lisk Says:

    1) For GM, most every thing they sell is 50-state compliant, but they still prefer to have the proper emission code ordered on the car/truck. Here’s what I find amazing, the Bolt has to be ordered with an emission code???
    I’m sure the California regs will deal more with the mix of what can be sold rather than the allowable tailpipe emissions.

    I’m not how the service life of an AV will make it less expensive. I understand the longer you keep something the yearly cost could go down but for folks on the 3-year cycle, they are not going to see that benefit. Cars will continue to loose 40-50% of their current value each year.

  6. Wim van Acker Says:

    Lynk & Co: ahhhh, they copy Lincoln’s name and “invent” the Porsche Macan. Great job.

  7. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I suspect the car companies will not change plans very much based on the rollback of standards. Anti-environmental extremist Scott Pruitt won’t be “running” the EPA forever, so the car companies won’t want to change course as if he were.

    It looks like most GM cars meet 50 state emissions. See table 1.

    https://www.gmfleet.com/content/dam/gmfleet/global/master/nscwebsite/en/Home/Resources/02_pdf/2018_Model_Emissions_Bulletin_8.24.pdf

    I suspect most other manufacturers do the same thing. It is cheaper to make a powertrain one way, than to make a second, slightly dirtier one, and with today’s technology, they can be made California compliant, and still run great.

  8. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I can see how autonomous cars could last longer, and have less maintenance along the say. I’ve known people who go through brakes in 25K miles, and I’d get 100K miles with the same car. I suspect the autonomous cars “let off the gas” when a light turns yellow 1/4 mile ahead, rather than going full speed ahead and slamming on the brakes the last second. I suspect the autonomous cars would also be easier on automatic transmissions than many human drivers.

  9. Drew Says:

    A unique California standard will mean major OEMs will have to supply-side force more sales of EVs to meet the CO2 requirement.

  10. BobD Says:

    I like the GMC off-road trim, but just can not get past GMC’s 2019 non-circular wheel wells. I realize it is a styling “feature” but hate it. Same with the Buick Tour-X wheel well trim with the styling “bump” at the top. What were they thinking? Glad John called it out on AAH last week. Both would be deal-breakers for me if I were shopping for those vehicles.

  11. Kit Gerhart Says:

    The California market alone, is almost twice the sales volume of Australia, and with the other states using the CA regs, you have about 5 times the volume of Australia. Car companies could opt out of selling cars in what amounts to ~5M annual volume, but I doubt if many would want to.

    Speaking of Australia, though, the American car companies DO mostly opt out of that market. It isn’t worth making RHD versions for such a small market, and Australia is about the only RHD market that goes for big vehicles.

  12. Chuck Grenci Says:

    As mentioned in the topic, the nine states that include California, have 30% of the car sales so they surely should have a say in emissions; whether they should have boycott status against the EPA, there I say NO (but they should be heard).
    #6, Van Acker: exactly my first reaction. (and the Chinese go berserk when the U.S. mentions tariffs/sanctions; they have no scruples.

  13. Kit Gerhart Says:

    The Chinese are copying things now, but in a few years, will probably be leading. It was that way with the Japanese. The 1960′s Toyota FJ40 Land Cruiser had a near-clone of a Chevy ‘blue flame’ six. In 1980, they certainly weren’t copying the ‘iron duke.’

  14. Usefull Says:

    For those who are advocating CA’s approach, I guess they have forgotten the CA cars from the 80s that you couldn’t give away when you wanted to resell them. It was because the mfg. adopted a “bolt on” approach to meeting the standards.

  15. Lisk Says:

    13) The Iron Duke was essentially slightly more modern variation a 2/3s version of the Chevy stovebolt six used in 154 cid in the Novw from 1962 until 1970.

  16. Kit Gerhart Says:

    The original iron duke was used in the 1962 Chevy II, and had non-crossflow head. It was redesigned for the X cars, with a crossflow head, that often cracked. At least the one in my ’86 Celebrity wagon did.

  17. Kit Gerhart Says:

    That’s redesigned for the front drive X cars. Chevy II/Nova were also X cars.

  18. Chuck Grenci Says:

    I had the Iron Duke (2.5 L) in my ’80 Citation; no rocket ship, but I had the four speed with the X-11 package and it was a fun ride (with excellent gas mileage). Considering the era, the pollution requirements (of the time), the carburetor; it did okay.

  19. Kit Gerhart Says:

    My ’86 Celebrity wagon had the same powrtrain, except that it had TBI, rather than a carburetor. It worked reasonably well, for the time, and got good gas mileage, but the head cracked at about 60K miles. It leaked coolant only, or mainly to the outside, and not into cylinders, so I just drove it a while longer, and sold it “as is” to a backyard mechanic who planned to find a used head for it.

  20. Frederick Schmidt Says:

    I had a first model year Citation. Worst piece of crap from GM. The only thing that didn’t break over 20,000 miles was the engine. It faced its death when the steering locked up and the car plowed into a very high jug handle curb and destroyed the whole fron of the car…Chevy said all these crap wagons will die like yours….haha. They really said mine was the only one with defective steering. It must have been one of those “easter egg options” of the early 80′s GM junk wagons.

  21. Lambo2015 Says:

    ON the EPA; This is the exact reason for the electoral college. California now has more registered voters than 46 other states at 18.2M however they cannot become the sole decision maker for the entire country. They have the numbers as the population of California exceeds the population of 43 other states and whole countries like Sweden and Australia. So they have a very large poker chip to play with. I just hate to see policies and laws being created by California that affect the entire country.

  22. Lambo2015 Says:

    On the EPA; I just really hate to see California throwing their weight around to establish regulations and laws for the rest of the country.
    I understand they now have more registered voters than 46 other states at 18.2M and the population of Cali exceeds 43 other states but that a perfect reason for the electoral college. So California doesn’t run the country.

  23. Chuck Grenci Says:

    Lambo, I agree (to a point). Cali has nine states in its ‘stable’ so it not just them yanking the automakers around though they are advocating the requires they desire. They should have a voice, a vote, but not dictate the law. JMO

  24. Lambo2015 Says:

    Chuck yes they should have a voice and as nine other states join their agenda it still doesnt make it realistic for the rest of the country. I lived in L.A and they forget the rest of the country isnt as densely populated. So they can want even regulate that everything go EV by 2025 and that might be realistic for California but the guy in Iowa that lives 200 miles from the nearest charging station wont think so highly of that type of regulation. So just saying that whats good for them isnt always good for the rest of the country and they now have the population to push and influence departments like the EPA. Thus forcing automakers to produce cars that 2/3 of the country doesnt want, or at least different in power or emissions.

  25. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Votes for president from Wyoming count more than 3 times as much as those from CA. How is that one person, one vote? The electoral college is a travesty. Ok, that’s just me.

  26. Lambo2015 Says:

    If not for the electoral college CA and NY would determine all elections. Thats would be the real travesty.

  27. Kit Gerhart Says:

    If not for the electoral college, everyone’s vote would count the same. W still would have won the second time.