• Alien Nathan Edward
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 year ago

      that’s a weird way of phrasing “the industry took advantage of regulatory capture to carve out a loophole for larger trucks”

      • Jake Farm
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        If all the regulators are captured, then it seems rather redundant to state that everytime I talk about something regulators did.

    • ...m...
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      …my wife’s `97 ranger single-cab was a fantastic utilitarian truck; after the wheels finally fell off we were disappointed that nothing so small + simple was produced any longer, so we replaced it with a glorious mazda 2 hatchback; sadly those are gone now, too, replaced by bloated crossovers…

      • @AA5B
        link
        English
        41 year ago

        I know someone who works for one of the American car manufacturers who claimed they couldn’t afford to make small trucks. They are more complex because of the tighter regulations so they couldn’t make them much cheaper than big ones. Who’s going to buy a small truck when a big one coasts only a little more?

        I don’t know how much of that is true, but the effects of looser regulations for bigger vehicles are pretty clear

        • ...m...
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          …my wife’s '97 ranger cost $10,000 new from the dealership: bare-bones base model, straight four, stick shift, rear-wheel-drive, air conditioning, and crank windows, which adjusted for inflation would be $19,000 today…by comparison, the cheapest, least-bloated ranger you can buy today starts at $33,000, although a base-model maverick can be had $25,000 if you’re willing to consider a four-foot unibody a pickup truck…

          …methinks that’s a lot more about profit margins the manufacturers are willing to accept than what’s technically feasible in today’s market…