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.”
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.”
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.)
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.”
AFAIK yes, that’s the loophole. If a vehicle is heavy enough then the law assumes it must be for “work” and thus some pollution laws don’t apply.
Car manufacturers noticed this and thus the massive “Sports” “Utility” Vehicle was born.
No, you’re entirely correct (though it was one of many factors, that being the largest)
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.”