That rule ain't changing unfortunately. Regulatory capture is STRONG with automotive and the US sees it as a matter of national security (car makers would be pivoted to other ares in times of war).
This isn't necessarily regulatory capture or protectionism.
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 interesting thing is Japanese companies generally manufacture cars they sell in America entirely in America, while “American” car companies manufacture their huge polluting machines in Mexico and maybe add one final part in the US so they can claim some work is done in the US. Japanese cars in the US aren’t imported while US cars are.
> 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?
Same for Honda. What's fascinating is the fact that Ford's manufacturing is less American than Honda, thanks to NAFTA but far be it to think a good ole fashioned American company like Ford would ever act like a corporation that's in it for the money, and move manufacturing out of the US.
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.
Much of this has to do with tariffs and point of final manufacturing can be key - so the question becomes if the car is shipped as a almost complete product and finalized or if it is sent as parts or if it built from local components. “Made in America” is not a simple question or answer.
At my previous job, I made the robots that Toyota, Suzuki, etc use in their manufacturing lines and directly installed them inside their factories. My experience is, for the most part, first hand.
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.
Toyota can't import trucks with such a small footprint. That would screw up their fuel efficiency metric. That could lead to fines from the US government. That is the primary issue here that prevents the sale of small trucks in the US.
With the current regulations, it makes the most sense to sell trucks with the longest wheelbase and largest width.
Can you explain this a little more (I dont live in the US and a preliminary search is failing me).
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.
Bigger vehicles are "trucks" and smaller vehicles are "cars". They have different standards. So while a small Japanese truck may have more efficient than a larger truck, it is legally a very inefficient car.
This is also why SUVs exist, they are legally trucks for fuel efficiency/etc.
These Stupid Trucks are Literally Killing Us [1] explains in detail how "trucks" overtook "cars" as the most popular vehicle in the US, and legislation that lead to that.
(Quotes because the words refer to the legal definition of trucks/cars.)
I read an article recently about the growth in sales of such "trucks" in Australia. In there people were complaining that the existing parking spaces aren't big enough for these vehicles, so there should be a review into parking regulations to make spots bigger to accommodate them.
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 have seen some of them prevent people from fueling their vehicles at local service stations. The current sizes are not compatible with size expectations.
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.
Putting the truck vs cars issue aside, there is still an incentive to make large wide trucks. The fuel efficiency allowance is based on the vehicle's "footprint" which is the distance between the wheels side to side times the distance between the wheels front to back. This metric comes out to some number of square feet. The fuel efficiency allowance is proportional to the number of square feet. Larger trucks are allowed to consume more fuel without penalty.
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.
> 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.
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)
If emissions were the concern they’d just require the cars to pass emissions.
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
That exemption exists for car collectors, who generally have a different set of safety expectations of their cars than you would buying a used car at a corner lot.
Kind of weird that car collectors in the US can't collect modern foreign cars, though. Why not instead just have "accredited collectors" like there are "accredited investors"? Wouldn't that be simpler? "Get the piece of paper waiving your right to car safety, and then you can buy whatever stupid cars you like, as long as you don't drive them very often."
Collectors are in luck and don't need an accreditation: "A vehicle may be permanently imported for show or display. Written approval from DOT is required and should be obtained before the vehicle is exported from the foreign country to the U.S."[1]
>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.
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.
Nor do they meet Japanese 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.
> 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 more like mopeds to motorcycles. If your moped went slower than 25mph and had an engine smaller than 50cc, they were treated more like a bicycle than a motorcycle.
> 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.
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 ?
America's standards for road worthy are just that much higher. IF you: start a car company, buy a bunch of them so the NHTSA can crash test them (thanks Mercedes-Benz for that one), fix them up so they meet modern Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) (which includes backup cameras, among other things), fix them up to meet smog standards (for California), which means it'll also need a compliant OBDII port (and a Japanese OBDII port returning Japanese characters instead of ascii codes won't count), then yeah, it can be considered road-worthy and as a bonus, you can sell them.
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.
US states control registration. Also older vehicles especially kei cars aren't nearly as polluting as one would think especially if only used for work rather than daily use, with mpg in the upper 50 to low 70s though fairly crap nox by comparison to modern 2020s cars.
They also encourage lower speeds which could be a plus in every way.
That scales with distance. If you're driving 30kph slower for 2 hours, it makes a difference. If you're heading 10-15km to the shop or the creamery, it's not so terrible. Speaking as someone who was a speed freak as a new driver, and sets my cruise at 78 in an 80 zone today...speed ain't everything. You wouldn't want to drive one of these kei vehicles on long trips, anyway.
The 25-year exception is intended for collectors and restorers. It is aligned with many states allowing historic/vintage/"horseless carriage" plates with limitations and reduced fees for vehicles over 25 years old. These rules are often something like must be driven < 1000 miles per year except trips to/from exhibitions and shows. The federal standards don't get so specific about restrictions on collector vehicles, they just get a lot looser about what can be registered after 25 years.
Thanks for the links. Why is the phrase "conspiracy theory" used for that though?
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. It would need to be made more efficient to get smaller otherwise you lose power. Truck owners are comparing power (even if they dont use it, and it's sometimes just brand bragging rights) so that sounds like a worse option if you're making and selling them.
It's value-judgement free if they had no hand in crafting or maintaining the loophole, but undermining popular policy with a loophole is a very common strategy for dodging regulation. If that's the case here then they aren't simply honest corporations just trying to sail the sea of incentives, they are more like a schoolyard bully who has grabbed an environmental cause by the hand and is doing the "why are you punching yourself?" maneuver.
I don't disagree with you on that component of it existing.
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.
Ok, without resorting to insulting you as you are me, according to you, is the 10th Amendment a loophole or not?
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 and show your disapproval of me?
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 left open and taken into account the whole spectrum of characterizations: intentional v not, malicious v not, passive v active. I have my own not-strongly held opinion on the car one while acknowledging all of that) means I'm not reasoning (unlike you). Got it.
If you are an individual who has a vote but not enough vested interest to fund a lobbying effort for expected positive ROI, loopholes are definitely a bug. If you are a corporation that wants to undermine regulation by pulling purse-strings rather than by defeating regulation attempts in the arena of public opinion, loopholes are definitely a feature. However, a corporation that pulls the purse-strings to subvert a bill makes itself morally culpable in the bill's intentional inadequacy. You seem awfully sure that this isn't what happened with the car size loophole. Why?
I am not awfully sure. Point is I threw you a bone in my first response to you, you know -- "opposite" sides to synthesize, which I now know I shouldn't have done, and you shat all over it. Which is why the conversation with you is over.
I was a bit tongue in cheek and playing off the previous comment using the phrase "conspiracy theory".
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), whether or not that's what this is, without involving "smoky rooms" (also known as boardrooms; but for fun on that topic, check out full history of NCR, company was nuts).
> I thought the standard conspiracy theory was that they started making them larger to avoid environmental regulation (which is pretty ironic).
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.
Check out US history during WWII. Auto manufacturing was even pivoted to airplanes. Things must be more specialized now but I assume it could still happen quickly.
My personal belief is this also explains American bias towards planes over rail.
It's not really the same. Fiat were an industrial concern that made planes, tanks, cars, trucks, etc. from before the war, and did so during the war too. Afterwards they split up, with today Iveco (a merger with a bunch of others) being the successor for buses and trucks, Fiat remaining the car brand, CNH Industrial for industrual (tractors and co) stuff, the aviation business being split between GE Aviation and Leonardo, etc.
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.
Regulatory capture sucks and seems like one of those problems that's deeper and more prevalent than people realize.
I'm interested in learning where it was actually _curtailed_ in some measurable way e.g. due to the public pushing back, or other reasons. If you know of resources/studies on the pushback story, assuming there is one, would be appreciated.
Microchips for million dollar smart bombs are important but the ability to give every able-bodied person in the country a machine gun or a tank shouldn’t be underestimated. In the end war is about controlling land and infantry are the best at that.
They are. Foxconn and Quanta both have a presence in the US due to incentives. TSMC is building in the US. Intel gets subsidies to stay in they US. Etc...
Yeah the US surprisingly sees things as a national security issue only when they don't interfere with corporations profiting, and fuck it if they make stuff more expensive for the dying middle class.
