EVs will work, but not at that sub-$20k price point.
The 90s Frontier is a tiny little thing, almost what a Kei truck is today. Same with the Ranger. An El Camino is bigger.
I bought a base Frontier in 2017, wanting that tiny truck but ended up with something the size of a 90s F150. Literally the smallest option on the market, whose weak-ass v4 struggles to haul its own weight (and has the turning radius of an aircraft carrier).
Tacomas? I like Toyota but the used market for those is worse than MSRP.
And Ford stopped making the Ranger; the Maverick ain't it. It's basically what I have already.
How is this the result of new efficiency standards? We still have small cars on the road. Cutting the roof off and appending a flatbed doesn't require a monster footprint.
TL;DW:
In 2008 CAFE introduced a formula that calculates the required MPG based off of the track times the wheelbase (basically the rectangle formed by the tires). Trucks are less aerodynamic than sedans, so small trucks can't be made that get sufficiently low MPG to meet this standard, and thus even though a smaller truck would use less fuel than a larger truck that meets the standard.
[edit]
Ford existing necessitates allowing pickups, it doesn't necessitate forcing them to be large. I'm just pointing out that any regulation that makes pickups unsaleable altogether is not going to work.
These laws are written by the same people who think you shouldn’t be in charge of your own life.
CA has nothing to do with the regulation in question, which is federal CAFE standards.
BMW's 3- and 5-series wagons are no longer sold in the US. Audi only has the A4 and A6 Allroad versions. Mercedes-Benz has only the E-class wagon remaining. Volvo, long the king of European wagons in the US, recently restored two models. So yeah, unfortunately for the most part they're out.
> Look like everyone wants a SUV these days.
This is true. Most of those wagons that were phased out became equivalent SUV models.
Is is it just that an F-150 that is as tall as a 1990 Ranger would look silly or something? The 1990s Buick Roadmaster Estate is not just 17" shorter in length than an F-150 Super Cab with a 6.5' bed, but also 17" shorter in height, which makes a sharing the road with these trucks bad (even before they are raised, which seems relatively common).
My dad wanted an 8' bed standard cab for his work and got an old one with almost 200k miles and I was slightly surprised to see it wasn't a step-up cab, while it seems like all modern trucks are.
[edit]
The Roadmaster Estate is also 8" shorter in height than the Ford Maverick, despite having a longer length; granted the Buick keeps its maximum height for a longer part of the length, but it has a shorter hood, and from the cab-back the Maverick doesn't go under 50" until the bumper.
If I understand it correctly, having a small truck counted among your sedans hurts the average MPG of your "car" line since even a fuel-efficient truck performs worse than cars.
Solution: add just enough mass to the Frontier to bump it from "cars" and put it in the "truck" class.
Among "trucks," the dummy-thicc Frontier now becomes the best-performing Truck, whose high average MPG raises the shittier average MPG of the rest of your gas-guzzling Titan/equivalents. Then you don't need to improve any of your existing trucks.
...which leaves little incentive for anybody to make a small truck. It hurts your average car MPG and only qualifies as a Truck if you add so much weight to it that it's no longer "small." This is dumb.
The rest of your point is totally valid (CAFE is a textbook example of well-intentioned regulations backfiring spectacularly).
But the climate denier nonsense kinda spoils the message.
We are pretending that what the government is interested in isn't climate change.