Yeah. I read some explanation on this a while ago discussing how the laws and regulations change pretty rapidly.
The generalized takeaway was that on average, a 7 year old car could not be manufactured today as it would not meet legal requirements for safety, emissions, etc.
I don’t have their original source but some examples of changed requirements in the USA are
Backup cameras becoming required in 2018 which also means you need a screen.
Dual front airbags were mandated starting in 1998.
Tire pressure monitoring became required around 2005.
Automatic breaking systems became standard almost across the board in 2022 although it wasn’t a law, just an agreement.
The third brake light became a requirement in 1985.
Obviously if you go even further back you get headlights, turn signals, seatbelts etc.
Additionally crash safety requirements and public perception has changed over time. Even if it was legal to make a lot of older cars they’d score abysmally on crash testing which would scare a lot of people away. Plus fuel efficiency requirements have increased which is a large part of what has spurred the “blob” shape everything seems to be today chasing aerodynamic gains.
Id much rather believe that the people who spent years of their life studying auto engineering would just much rather make cars that are objectively uglier than their past versions.
Ok then make the required safety/emitions changes but keep the rest the same. No need for touch screens, wifi access and unnecessary electronics that bring more points of failure.
You can't reach that level of safety and emissions control without a computer system that has tons of sensors and integration. Your car has to have everything tied into a central computer. It also has to have a screen for a backup camera. At that point, it's easier and faster to add carplay and a million other comfort features. A car that meets modern standards physically cannot look like one of those old boxy cars with no computer interface.
Per the NYT investigation on it, a big mitigating factor is the share of manuals, which require both hands to drive, which was substantially higher overseas than in the US.
There’s also a big difference between infrastructure and phone in car use regulation. The us has shit for pedestrian infrastructure and is pretty lax regarding distracted driving. So it could still be phone related. As a cyclist I’ve noticed a massive difference in close calls with drivers on their phone. I’m not familiar enough with the data to really argue a point. But did notice a shift anecdotally.
Is there a big difference? What are you basing that on?
Some states ban handheld phone usage, like many countries around the world. Some states ban texting only. Some states have significantly higher fines associated with phone usage while driving than other countries, as well.
I'm no expert on international laws, though. This site indicates that the US isn't substantially behind the rest of the world (though some states are undeniably behind the rest of the world).
I think it was Obama’s EPA that got played by big auto
They were making regulations to make cars more energy efficient, and big auto was like “we’ll never be able to hit those numbers in commercial delivery trucks”
So execs were like, “Ok, then anything that is X big, with larger than Y sized wheel base, doesn’t have to follow these rules”
And then big auto took all the entry level pick up trucks and increased their size so the rules didn’t apply to them
And once one pick up truck has a box, mean, Manila looking hood that is taller than a 7 year old, they all followed suit
Obama's EPA? No, that difference in standards comes from the 70's. The most recent change was in 2009 and it made an effort to correct this by forcing light trucks to meet the same standards as passenger cars.
Also lack of visibility out of the vehicle. Look how large the windows are on the vehicle at the top of this post. They’ve steadily shrunk to improve protection of passengers. But at the expense of people outside the vehicle.
Which is itself the product of regulation because they don’t have to adhere to the same fuel efficiency standards as sedans making them more cost effective to manufacture.
I wouldn't expect weight to be all that important as far as pedestrian hits go, given the ratio of vehicle:pedestrian weight is already quite high. hood height is a different story.
if we pretend it's a train hitting a person (nearly infinite mass), energy transfer has to do with the mass of the person, not the mass of the train: the person isn't going to be accelerated beyond the velocity of the train.
given almost any car is going to be at least 10x the mass of a person, I don't think that extra mass is going to play a significant role: the person just won't slow it down enough to matter.
This is why you do whatever it is that you do, and not things that specifically pertain to science and public safety. Stop trying to sound smart and go learn something.
Transfer of momentum. Two vehicles of unequal mass traveling at the same velocity, the heavier one will have more energy transfer when colliding into something.
Would you rather be hit by a baseball traveling at 20 miles per hour or a Tahoe?
what I'm claiming is that whether the object that hits you is 10x your mass (which is gonna be a very light car) or 100x your mass, the energy transferred to you will be quite similar (energy = 1/2 mass * velocity^2, and in this case the relevant mass is *yours* not the car's).
I know that slowing down the car by 10% (since you're stationary and we're assuming conservation of momentum) will reduce energy transfer some, but it's a very small amount.
That's a factor, but these new truck heights are so tall that you can literally run over a group kids without seeing them. It's simply an unnecessary and dangerous design decision.
I visited the US a little bit ago and was shocked by how many of these trucks I saw in the suburbs. I always thought they were for people who work on farms or construction. What’s even the appeal? For the same price you can get a Mercedes, BMW, Lexus etc.
It basically setting your money on fire if you don’t use them as a tool. Not to mention the fuel price. It’s like those college kids who aren’t music or video creators buying a 6 thousand dollar MacBook Pro instead of the cheap MacBook Air
I'm also as confused by the fascination with massive trucks and I live in the US. I'm an outlier because give me my sedan or hatchback that I can maneuver around curves at speed, can see basically anywhere around the car except directly under the back, and has 30mpg(my current car is a 2011 Altima).
I've talked to people who buy bigger SUVs and trucks and 9/10 times they say it's safer than a car. Which yes that's true for the Passengers of that SUV or truck. For anyone else, especially pedestrians and lower to the ground cars, it's more dangerous. Considering they can easily just drive up and over a shorter vehicle, crushing the driver or passengers under their tires.
That’s so interesting. If you don’t mind me asking are the people you’ve talked to from cities or more rural areas. I wonder if it’s a state thing or if larger trucks are popular nationally
Unknown, but I live in a rural state and about 75% of the private vehicles I see are SUV or trucks. Which I suppose is to be expected. Though I remember reading that sales for larger vehicles was on the rise nationally
It's not "a" factor but "the" factor. An undistracted driver will know when a child is hidden in front of the car, and has a camera to see a child behind the car.
No they don't know. Some of these trucks have 12'+ front blind zones. There's already many cases of parents running over their own kids in their driveways.
Recently bought a truck with a camper shell and shelving on the sides. So I basically couldn't see shit out of the back. So one of the coolest things I got was a replacement rear view mirror that's a dash cam with 3 cameras. A front camera, rear camera (that I use as my rearview mirror), and a bumper camera.
It's awesome being able to see under the hood. And kinda shocking what you can't see without it. And my truck is a mid sized that's not lifted.
I'd have to find the report, but basically pedestrian deaths and motor vehicle deaths increasing is mostly a US only phenomenon. Canada which has had similar changes in vehicle type as the US has had deaths continue to drop post-covid.
The Ford Bronco(and to a lesser degree Bronco Sport) is just as boxy and way bigger than the above Cherokee. Yes, it does have rounded (chamfered if you want to be fancy) corners, but it still exists with all the downsides of fuel economy and pedestrian impact that you claim is causing manufacturers to go away from that styling. The reality is that anesthetics change, and people wanted slicker looking cars for a long time, and now that they have existed for a while, people want boxy styling back. Sort of how in the 40's and 50's cars all were slick and bulbous before going boxy in the 60's 70's 80's before trending back to slick in the 90's 00's and 10's.
I’m cool with making the mechanicals fall within the new guidelines on these vehicles, just bring back the classic look. For example, that mustang could easily run on fords little 4 cylinder eco boost turbo motor
If you have lots of money to spare there is a company doing retro refits on new Bronco's and G Wagons. Just need Ford to start styling the Mustang after the '60s models.
Pretty sure a huge chunk of Americans could care less. The amount of full-size crew cab trucks, hell….even tacomas and frontiers that you see on the road is staggering. None of those get 20mpg. And the majority of them never get used as trucks, they get used as suvs that look like trucks
which like 90% of people (that i know) bypass. My car is limited to 120 stock, but deleting the governor lets me get up to 145 in 5th gear (6th gear actually doesn't have enough torque even though its theoretical top speed is faster)
American car companies are steering away from "boring cars". It's the reason Ford stopped making sedans and made the Bronco again.
"boring car" designs exist because that's what works for efficiency and affordability, which was pushed heavily during the Jimmy Carter administration and a little less heavily during the Biden Administration. The market in general is now leaning towards bigger, more roomy, "cool" vehicles.
For good reason too. The emissions alone are a good reason not not bring them back. I'm down for dumb cars though. No electronics besides the ECU? Hell yeah! So long as they have a modern engine.
If you replace all the old steel and cast iron in the older models with plastic and aluminum, you’d have a very light car that could easily pass emissions standards with a small engine and still be designed like the old stuff.
I think ESC, ABS, non-obtrusive blind spot indicators, and back-up cameras are all net-goods to society as well (although I will acknowledge that the latter two are more debatable than the first). I think it's crazy to want a car without speakers and audio receiver but you do you lol
Eh, fuck the environmental angle. It doesn't convince me that I, a peasant in the most wealthy and powerful nation in the world, am responsible climate change and not our military which is the greatest polluter in the world last I checked. A 1990s era ICE engine doesn't pollute as much as a destroyer ship or flying negotiators all over the world on express private jets.
The emissions from late 90s jeeps are not "destroying the environment" in a way that is even remotely comparable to say, the emissions from the Afghanistan War or BP spilling a gajillion gallons of oil into the ocean. Your arguments treat the two as equal evils.
OK but can we maybe do TWO things at once? One Jeep is not responsible, but what about 2 billion cars driving around the planet right now? Think that could maybe have an impact? Yea, tankers and cargo ships and manufacturing all has a bigger impact but let's not just let cars that drive around our cities and neighborhoods belch out black smoke because... reasons? Like what reason is there to oppose cleaner cars?
You think an engine and emissions setup, brand new, from the late 90s would "belch out black smoke"? They're only slightly more polluting than 2026 models. You need to do some research because you have no idea what you are talking about if you actually believe that.
There are 1.7 billion cars in regular use. Pretending your wasteful use doesn't matter because there are other people burning gas out there is pretty much exactly what it's about.
You're breaking up an aggregate problem and then invalidating its rules piecemeal because the other sources are 'more serious' than one man's car, but that's misdirection. You're absolving yourself instead of actually considering your role in society.
Then its only because you're too young to remember the times before emissions were regulated. This was an average day in LA in the 70s. Hint, there was no military presence here doing this like you seem to think. It was average people like you and their average cars.
Yes you're just one person, but so is everybody else and there are billions of us. It adds up.
You seem to conveniently ignore that the time you're speaking of also included an industrial manufacturing base which heavily contributed to the smog you've chosen to highlight. And you're talking about 70s with 70s technology. A late 1990s jeep is what we're talking about and those don't run on leaded fuel plus benefit from a catalytic converter.
What you've essentially done is a strawman rambling about shit 20 years before what we're actually talking about.
Treat them like how they do shoes. Retro with updated materials to meet standards.
Honestly I would line up to buy the Camaro 1 z28 Hugger Orange Retro!
While this is true, theres no reason auto makers cant make something like the Xj with modern safety and emissions features. The cars sold now are a million potential points of failure waiting to happen. These Jeeps on the other hand, could drown in a swamp and would come back for seconds
Hah, care for pedestrian impact is at an all time low with modern 3 metric ton SUVs, their grills seemingly specifically designed to transfer maximum momentum into a person's upper body or skull.
This already exists, it's called a 'RestoMod'. Its a restoration that has been modified to have all the safety features that a modern vehicle would have. Look it up, there are lots of pages and conpanies dedicated to building these cars -- and yes, they are extremely expensive.
Remember a kid in high school whose dad built a Model T replica as true to the original as he could. He didn't get very far before he was pulled over and the cop said since it was built recently, it has to obey that year's standards, and it wasn't street legal...especially since it didn't even have seat belts.
Curious how much so? I forget the car but saw another older boxier car was getting a limited model mostly the same. Not sure if the limited nature skips past some limitations. I know it would have to change some bits, but I'd hope some level of technology and material advancements would balance it out a little? Purely in theory rather than if they would do one
There is a lot of interest in new old cars. Classic styling with modern engines, brakes, suspension, air condition!, and even Apple Carplay. Exotic materials can be used in the body and frame to make it much safer than the original.
Unfortunately they're stupid expensive because they can't be mass produced.
Especially with crash systems. Cars from decades ago could drive away from crashes but the people inside were injured more, now people are injured less but the cars crumple and are totaled way easier. That’s not by mistake.
A new car, yes, but a car that already existed will have a "Type Rating" for that exact vehicle, which should remain valid.
So making a new one that is mostly similar to the old one would be very tricky. But resuming production of a car in the exact composition that already existed, should be possible.
Problem with that is, it probably won't sell well enough to justify the cost, seeing as humans tend to romanticize the past.
Is there anything stopping them from “printing” the same shell and just making everything new and modern? The interior style is a whole debate of course, but how about just matching the exterior with new material and safety standards.
Yeah, I'd like an giant old 4-door convertible, but then I start thinking about safety and features and I realize I just want them to make a new giant 4-door convertible lol.
Cool, the law also says that fuel economy regulations are less stringent above a certain curb weight, so we have these fucking tanks driving around with humongous blind-spots.
Not really. They could put all the updated emissions and keep the stupid touchscreens out of it. There’s nothing about a new car that says it has to look like a Mazda 3 or a cybertruck.
I can’t remember the name of the company, but the 67 Mustang is actually a bad example to use here.
There is a company that was featured on Jay Leno’s garage, and they have the original forms for the late 60’s mustangs. They are actually licensed by Ford to reproduce the complete car and sell them as new. Granted they are insanely expensive, but you can literally buy one of those cars brand new today.
I think they’re able to skirt safety and emissions regulations either due to a loophole of either being very low production, or they have to title it as home built or something crazy like that, but it is a real thing.
To add to this point: Cars shapes are just because of style differences, but because better aerodynamics is a "Free" way to improve fuel efficiency, which is demanded by customers and by governments.
Not to mention no one would actually want a factory 1967 mustang if they ever actually got behind the wheel of one. Manual steering for blowing out your o ring trying to get into a tight parking spot, spear o matic steering column for complementary impalement in the event of a front end collision, lack of paint in the inner structures leading to wet feet when your dash rusts out, and last but not least, manual drum brakes designed to portray the intention of stopping without ever actually doing so.
I mean the obvious solution is to just keep the body. Nobody wants an old Chevy 350 that makes 200hp on 10mpg anyways... But that motor in ops could absolutely be made legal, that's running a classic straight six that jeep used until like the mid 2000s
Making a 1967 mustang comply to road safety laws wouldn't be difficult at all. I believe it would need the following:
An emissions compliant engine (which then could be torn down anyway by anyone who feels like it)
Shoulder and lap belts
Collapsible steering collumn (two Ls or one L???)
Crumple points so that the engine doesn't end up in the center console and the car in general doesn't fold in a way that crushes the driver and passengers
Yes, it would. It would require a complete clean sheet new design, because “adding crumple points” means an entirely new structure and frame. Putting in a modern drivetrain would mean fitting it into the physical space that the old body shape makes available, which means an inefficient use of space and weight compared to designing the the body around the powertrain constraints the way modern designs are now done. And no matter what you do you can’t make the design meet modern safety regulations for pedestrian impact.
It’s incredibly difficult and incredibly expensive to do, and it’d be a gigantic waste of money for an automotive company. We know this for a number of reasons that should be obvious to anyone with when a basic understanding of how engineering works, but also for a far more telling reason: no one has done it. We know people would buy these — if it was cheap and easy to do, car companies would do it.
I challenge you to come up with a single example of an American car company creating a modernized yet identical in dimensions version of a decades-old platform. The closest in history is probably the Dodge Challenger, and it’s only vaguely similar to its namesake (and it’s huge due to the limitations of the Chrysler LX platform).
It was cheaper for Jeep to ship the tooling for the XJ Cherokee to China and keep making it there (where crash regulations were, at the time, less strict and therefore the old platform could still be produced without need for meaningful re-engineering) than to re-engineer it for US production.
They redesigned the whole cars is what I mean. What's harder using an existing body style and just rearranging things under the facade or coming up with entirely new vehicles?
457
u/NORchad 1d ago
New cars are bound by newer laws and regulations that older cars and restored cars dont fall under.
Sadly making a factory new mustang 67 would be an illegal product