you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 9 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Agreed, wasn't it a 'work truck' heavy vehicle tax break after the fuel crisis in the 70s that created these monstrosities?

(Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm late for work.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [โ€“] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    AFAIK yes, thatโ€™s the loophole. If a vehicle is heavy enough then the law assumes it must be for โ€œworkโ€ and thus some pollution laws donโ€™t apply.

    Car manufacturers noticed this and thus the massive โ€œSportsโ€ โ€œUtilityโ€ Vehicle was born.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [โ€“] 2 points 11 months ago*

    The solution then is to remove that loophole, by keeping the pollution laws applied there. And those who actually used such vehicles for work? Yeah, sucks, but they should complain at those car manufacturers.

    Or alternatively, we classify them as trucks instead of as cars.

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 4 points 11 months ago

    Close. I believe you're referring to the EPA efficiency mandates passed in the 90s that carved out exceptions for "heavy duty" trucks and SUVs, which lead to the creation of "crossover" vehicles, which started as a way to deliver car-like efficiency and features, while still minimizing development and efficiency costs by still having it classified as a "truck."

  • source
  • parent