The U.S. automotive media have been strangely silent about Republican lawmakers’ gutting of corporate average fuel economy standards, but Automotive News finally asked the question: Will it mean “thirstier engines”?
Reporter Molly Boigon (2025) answered that question partly by quoting analyst Sam Fioriani, who suggested that V8s could make a comeback. “People want to hear the rumble of a V-8. They want to feel” the “raw power of that larger engine.”
The just-signed budget bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress with no help from Democrats “effectively eliminates CAFE” by removing fines — which could result in less demand for credits, Boigon (2025) noted. Alas, in yet another example of Automotive News’ astute industry analysis, she did not specifically address whether the survival of EV startups could be imperiled.
Editorial clearer than article about climate impacts
Boigon (2025) also did not explicitly state that in recent decades CAFE standards have been a key policy tool for fighting climate change. Yet in the middle of her article the following sentence was plopped without any context:
“Exceeding a 3.6-degree increase in global temperature after 2035 could result in catastrophic and irreversible climate impacts, according to a study from the European Geosciences Union journal Earth System Dynamics.”
An unsigned Automotive News (2025) editorial was more articulate in making the connection between CAFE and climate change. “In the real world — where the United States is no longer the world’s largest auto market and where global competition for technological mobility advancements is still vital to stopping the existential threat that is climate change — the budget bill feels a lot like purposely shifting a fast-moving race car into reverse in the middle of the back straightaway.
“Not only does the legislation represent a whiplash-inducing, high-speed 180-degree course alteration for the U.S. auto industry when it comes to electric vehicles, but the detritus from its rapid implementation at the end of September are likely to be left scattered all over the track” (Automotive News (2025).
Automotive News gingerly avoids industry self-policing
Automotive News (2025) went on to recommend that the auto industry “adopt a long view” and recognize that “Trump’s successor may change EV and energy policy again in 2029, and global automakers must still meet regulation and technology requirements in other regions.”
This is reasonable advice as far as it goes. However, if Automotive News really believes that climate change is an “existential threat,” why not call for the industry to prove that it can police itself by setting voluntary greenhouse-gas reductions?
In other words, why not focus the discussion on the industry taking long-term responsibility for its actions rather than merely anticipating future regulations?
MotorTrend is unusual in covering bill’s passage
At least Automotive News is treating its readership as adults interested in reading the news. In cruising through the automotive media, I found it striking how many websites were instead dominated by splashy stories about the latest products.
Of course, if you looked hard enough you could find a few signs of vaguely intelligent life. MotorTrend should be given credit for a story that itemized how the budget bill will affect car buying and ownership.
Scott Evans (2025) walked through the legislation’s components, but he did little to address its broader public-policy implications, such as whether deregulation resulted in greenhouse gas emissions growing — making climate change worse.
It was almost as though Evans saw his readers as small-minded consumers rather than citizens who cared about the future they left for their children.
Will the rest of auto media address CAFE’s gutting?
Perhaps the rest of the car-buff media has been slow to cover the budget bill’s passage because we are in the depths of summer. In addition, the bill is so big and complex that it can be difficult to wrap one’s brain around, so I can see why smaller media outlets might wait to see how others analyze its impacts before weighing in. Might Automotive News’ story lead to a wave of coverage?
Also see ‘Could U.S. regulatory rollback lead auto industry to repeat of late-50s backlash?’
The gutting of CAFE standards is one of the most significant legislative actions impacting the auto industry in decades, so one would think that even the car-buff media would feel a journalistic responsibility to address it. And rather than merely focusing on the immediate impacts to consumers, how about analyzing the bill’s long-term impacts to the climate?
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Automotive News; 2025. “In our opinion: Trump budget bill is temporary, but reality can’t be legislated away.” Unsigned editorial posted July 10.
- Boigon, Molly; 2025. “Return of the gas-guzzler? Trump’s new law may mean thirstier engines.” Automotive News. Posted July 10.
- Evans, Scott; 2025. “How the One Big Beautiful Bill Will Affect Car Buying and Ownership.” MotorTrend. Posted July 8.
Following the available data and assuming that temperatures will keep rising as per predictions, the electrification of the whole (or landslide majority of) fleet of passenger cars and trucks (pickups and lorries) would be among the imperative measures to take. However, at least from what I have understood, in Europe most also say that electrification should be accompanied by a drastic reduction of the overall road vehicles fleet, by that implying reliance on public transportation and compact urban centres.
Given the US’ poor public transportation system and the abysmal (in the mentioned above sense) urban structure, electrification and reduction of the number of cars – as things stand – would absolutely wreck the ability of Americans to move around. This is the main issue, I believe.
You go to war with the army you have, not the one you want. Thus, the specific strategies used in Europe would not generally translate well to the United States. That doesn’t strike me as a reason to declare defeat.
For one thing, I would question the idea that electrification would “absolutely wreck the ability of Americans to move around.” Yes, the charging infrastructure is still in its infancy, but that can be built out over time. And while the Republicans have certainly set back such efforts, climate change is only going to get worse, so it seems inevitable that the political pendulum will swing in the other direction.
The current zeitgeist has a last-of-the-wine quality, kind of akin to Herbert Hoover winning the presidency in 1928. That tipped over fast.
Mass transit systems require density to work. For example, we have 1/6 the population density of Germany. In areas with sufficient population density, we have thorough mass transit systems.
In my state (Pennsylvania) we have thorough mass transit systems in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh regions. We only have a bus system here in the Harrisburg region, although there is an Amtrak line that connnects the city to Lancaster and Philadelphia. Some people do use it to commute to work from Mt. Joy/Elizabethtown and Middletown to downtown Harrisburg. That is because with our population levels, any regional fixed rail system would spend most of its time transporting air.
There is not going to be any widespread movement back to V-8 engines, or even larger engines in general. That is wishful thinking.
The Toyota RAV-4 knocked the Ford F-Series out of first place in sales for 2024. If we only count sales to RETAIL customers, I would be willing to bet that the Honda CR-V claims the second spot. The RAV-4 and CR-V are now clearly the heart of the new-vehicle market.
Which is why Ford’s plan to discontinue the Escape – which has nothing to do with this new bill – is what is really troubling. I’m more concerned about moves such as this than this bill.
The best-selling passenger cars, meanwhile, have historically been the Toyota Camry and Corolla, and Honda Civic.
Toyota and Honda are not going to stuff a V-8 in those cars, or the RAV-4 and CR-V, because customers are perfectly happy with their four-cylinder engines. Both manufacturers have, in fact, been moving to expand their hybrid offerings, which is what customers really want.
The days when a vehicle needed a V-8 to offer smooth, spirited performance ended almost 30 years ago.
Yes, some people want a V-8 in their Charger or Mustang, but those are now fringe vehicles, sold to a very select customer base. They do not represent the heart of the market.
Those are excellent points. Peter DeLorenzo has been arguing for some time that affordability is one of the biggest factors driving the auto industry. I suspect that it could become even more so if tariffs and mass deportations hike the cost of living for Americans while dramatic federal budget cuts increase the unemployment rate (remember, the Medicaid cuts alone could put a bunch of hospitals out of business, and in rural communities they are often one of the largest employers).
That said, we might still see a bump in sales of trucks and SUVs with V8s. And we will almost certainly see an extension of the product life cycle of ICE vehicles beyond what had been previously planned.
As your example of Ford discontinuing the Escape illustrates, I suspect that the Big Three could have a harder time adjusting to cheaper and smaller vehicles over the next few years than major Asian automakers, who have universally maintained broader lineups than has Detroit.
Why did U.S. automakers box themselves into a corner? They have blamed the high cost of a shift to EVs, but I think it is more fundamental than that: Embedded in the genes of Detroit culture is a deep yearning make its cars bigger, glitzier and more powerful. It borders on religious.
The car magazines you mention are for car buffs. Unless the readers are willfully ignorant of climate change and its causes they are aware of the consequences of gutting CAFE. Polarizing political issues like this are are not really the core purpose of these magazines. i agree fully with your editorial position but I don’t come here for this, I come here to read about the Independents playing Musical Chairs on the Titanic.
Two things. First, as a retired journalist I think that even the car-buff media have a responsibility to cover the news in at least a general way. And the gutting of CAFE is one of the biggest stories of the last decade. I would also argue that the auto industry angle on the budget bill has tended to not receive adequate coverage in the general-interest media.
As far as Indie Auto is concerned, I have structured the website so that it has a magazine-style format even though it is a glorified blog. This is to make it easier for people to focus on the areas that they are most interested in.
That said, note the tag line in the logo: “Past + Present + Future.” It’s been that way since the outset, and the content has always followed suit. So if you come here merely to read about auto history, that’s your choice, not mine.
This is partly out of interest (remember, I essentially do this on a volunteer basis, so I need to stay motivated enough to sit at the keyboard rather than, say, go fishing). However, it is also strategic: My sense is that those who are most interested in auto history are aging out. I need content that is interesting to younger readers as well.
I’m all for the demise of CAFE standards, perhaps it will put an end to things like cylinder deactivation and stop/start, plus any other “technology” that puts engine life behind an extra fraction of a mile per gallon. The consumer should dictate what the automakers produce, not the government. No, I’m not itching to get a raised truck with a huge engine, both of my cars are just normal size cars that typically get 20 mpg, about what I got with my Pinto station wagon in the early 80s.
Sure, I’d love a new car but not one with this forced technology that will cost me in the long run.
About 20 years ago, GM had engines like the 3800 V6 and 5.3L V8 and Ford had the Modular V8’s that would get 300,000 miles with routine maintenance. I would like to see a return to that. I read about constant problems with the engines in today’s vehicles as well as the CVT’s installed in many cars and crossovers in order to meet CAFE standards. I understand that even the hybrid turbo V6 in the Toyota Tundra is troublesome.
Yes, I should have mentioned the disasters known as CVTs. Not only do I despise them for self destructing, I despise how they feel when I am driving rental cars equipped with them. I understand standards to a reasonable point, but that point has been passed and car owners are left to lose more than they gained in fuel economy via the high repair bills. These are among the reasons I would never consider a hybrid or an electric car.
I understand your hesitation toward hybrids; they are complex beasts. However, the Toyota Prius has had a pretty good reliability record, so I took the risk of buying a used V wagon. It has more electronic doodads than I would prefer but has done its job decently so far.
Are you suggesting that electric cars have more to go wrong than gas powered? If so I’m surprised by that given that their engines are much simpler. My sense is that the problems with Teslas have more to do with the manufacturer than the power source.
This video is worth considering – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cREDsEsbAPo&list=WL&index=5
It was hard for me to find out exactly what changes were made to CAFE in the “One Big Bad Budget-Busting Bill” — the mainstream media did not give it much coverage. I finally found a comprehensive article by Inside EVs: https://insideevs.com/news/765944/cafe-fuel-economy-rules-dead-ev-sales/
It turns out that the mileage standards for the present and future remain in place, but there are no longer any fines for manufacturers that do not meet these standards. So, if the carmakers choose to go back to inefficient engines like big V8s, they are free to do so.
As others have stated above, I doubt this backtracking will happen en masse, although we may see a move away from the least popular features like stop-start and cylinder deactivation.
I have had no issues with hybrids; I just bought my 3rd one, a 2025 Toyota Camry. I just sold my prior hybrid, a 2015 Camry Hybrid with nearly 105K miles for a decent sum on eBay. I had zero repair issues with it since new, replacing only filters, fluids, wiper blades, a couple of minor light bulbs, and 2 sets of tires over the years. Brakes have been untouched; ditto for the main hybrid battery and even the 12-volt battery in the trunk. I averaged just over 41 mpg over my time with the car.
By the way, stop-start is a nonissue for hybrids (which have no conventional starter or alternator), because when the gas engine stops, the battery-electric system keeps motive power and all accessories like a/c fully functional.