TELL THE FEDS TO FREEZE THE REGS!

[Intrepidation]

Every day Chrysler LLC builds Euro-spec versions of the Chrysler 300 at its assembly plant in Canada, bolts a V6 diesel engine into most of them, and ships them off to Europe. That diesel 300 gets better fuel economy, over 30 mpg, than all the other vehicles in Chrysler's U.S. showrooms. But it's against the law for Chrysler to sell that car in America.

Right now Ford and General Motors are trying to figure out how to bring many of their fuel-efficient European models to the U.S. and manufacture them here. They'd love to do it immediately, but it will take them several years to modify, test and validate those designs before they can meet U.S. regulations. Until they do, it's illegal to sell those cars in America.

Anybody else out there agree with me that this is crazy? Let's let automakers bring their fuel efficient European cars over here immediately. As long as a car meets the Euro 5 emission regulations and the latest European NCAP safety standards, we ought to let them build those vehicles in the U.S. with no other modifications.

John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers. Follow the jump to continue reading this week's editorial.

Those European standards are extremely stringent. It's not as if we'd be allowing smog-spewing death traps to show up on our shores. In fact, there would be virtually no increase in traffic fatalities, nor any measurable increase in air pollution.

But even though U.S. and European emissions and safety standards are awfully close, it takes a lot of time and effort to get a car to comply with either one. It's not as bad if a car were designed from scratch to meet both standards, but if you have to go back and modify an existing European design to meet U.S. standards, it takes a lot more effort than most people realize.

To make this politically palatable I'd make this a temporary freeze, where any automaker would be given a 5-year window to bring Euro-spec vehicles here. After that, those cars would have to meet whatever U.S. standards are on the books. And they would have to be built in North America-no fair importing them (not that they want to considering the dollar/euro exchange, but this would placate the unions).

And there's a precedent for this. Back in 1980 then-President Jimmy Carter froze certain emission and safety standards to give automakers some breathing room as they struggled to re-tool their line-ups to deal with the oil crisis of that day. Guess what? We all survived that temporary freeze.

Moreover, I'm told that Mexico will allow automakers to sell any vehicle there as long as they meet U.S. or European standards. So if we did a similar sort of thing maybe it would help push the industry towards the common international standard that it's been begging for, for years.

The beauty of this idea is that it would not involve any taxpayer money, no corporate welfare, or any complex scheme to regulate at all. It would instantly give consumers many more choices, immediately help the United States reduce its dependence on oil, and promptly provide the domestic industry with some of the assistance it desperately needs.

Source: Autoblog

Edited July 31, 2008 by Dodgefan

[BuddyP]

That makes very good sense.

[regfootball]

ok here x2

but remember, you always can count on the people's republic of california to eff a common sense plan like that up.

Edited August 4, 2008 by regfootball

[Intrepidation]

California can go EFF themselves and not get the diesel goodness.

[Drew Dowdell]

How about a national requirement to meet Euro bin 5 by 2010 and then work with Europe to develop a unified standard and CARB can lump it if they don't like it.

Simultaneously, national standards for gasoline and diesel formulation.

My guess is there is no chance of that happening till after January 20, 2009.

[Camino LS6]

California's power to regulate auto emission standards needs to be revoked - permanently.

In fact, the auto industry is way overdue for a break from regulation. The market demands excellence in all areas to such a degree that government regulation at the level it now exists is a textbook case of overkill. If we want innovation in our cars, the chains need to come off.

[Drew Dowdell]

If we want innovation in our cars, the chains need to come off.

Not neccessarily. The auto makers just need standardized chains.

[Camino LS6]

Not neccessarily. The auto makers just need standardized chains.

That might help, but here is the problem with regs: they are rarely re-evaluated or updated. This creates unintended consequences down the road. I'm all for a freeze on the existing regs and an honest re-evaluation of all of them which tosses the overbearing and un-needed and adds new ones only after an exhaustive and comprehensive evaluation of the actual value and costs involved. Right now we need to free the hand of the industry to help itself.

[Sixty8panther]

California's power to regulate auto emission standards needs to be revoked - permanently.

Agreed... and that is just the start!

[Hudson]

We CANNOT give a temporary waiver to European car just to get them into the US quicker unless you want to give GM and Ford amnesty from the lawsuits that will follow. How many families will sue Ford and GM for not meeting the federal standards when their family member is killed in an accident in these vehicles? Don't think it will happen? My favorite lawsuit was where a woman's family sued Ford for not putting airbags in her 1986 Ford Escort even though she could have ponied up the extra money and bought an airbag-equipped Ford Tempo...or even put on her seatbelt the day she was killed! Yet the courts ruled in her family's favor (atleast the early rulings were in their favor).

As for California being given exemptions from the Federal emission standards, I have no problem with that. By allowing California to push for tougher standards, automakers need to work harder than they would normally to improve their vehicles and make them cleaner. As much as they fuss and whine, the automotive industry has done an excellent job of making technologically advanced, clean, and reliable vehicles. Today's cars emit 1% of the pollution that the equivalent vehicle did in 1970! Part of that has to do with the Federal standards and part of that is California's added push since many vehicles are 50-state compliant.

And as far as I know, most (if not all) of the diesel Chrysler 300s are built in Graz, Austria, not Bramalea, Ontario.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Hudson

[thegriffon]

Euro5 is not quite as strict as the latest US standards, that is the major problem.

[BuddyP]

We CANNOT give a temporary waiver to European car just to get them into the US quicker unless you want to give GM and Ford amnesty from the lawsuits that will follow. How many families will sue Ford and GM for not meeting the federal standards when their family member is killed in an accident in these vehicles? Don't think it will happen? My favorite lawsuit was where a woman's family sued Ford for not putting airbags in her 1986 Ford Escort even though she could have ponied up the extra money and bought an airbag-equipped Ford Tempo...or even put on her seatbelt the day she was killed! Yet the courts ruled in her family's favor (atleast the early rulings were in their favor).

As for California being given exemptions from the Federal emission standards, I have no problem with that. By allowing California to push for tougher standards, automakers need to work harder than they would normally to improve their vehicles and make them cleaner. As much as they fuss and whine, the automotive industry has done an excellent job of making technologically advanced, clean, and reliable vehicles. Today's cars emit 1% of the pollution that the equivalent vehicle did in 1970! Part of that has to do with the Federal standards and part of that is California's added push since many vehicles are 50-state compliant.

And as far as I know, most (if not all) of the diesel Chrysler 300s are built in Graz, Austria, not Bramalea, Ontario.

another reason so everything is getting so expensive in this country... Layers and frivalous lawsuits. No matter what, someone will find something to sue for. And it's complete BS that this sh!t get's through the judicial system.