By Eric Peters
A recent headline from Automotive News caught my eye:
“President Donald Trump’s nixing of fines for automakers failing to meet corporate average fuel economy standards through his new budget law guts the regulations and will encourage the return of the gas-guzzler, analysts and environmental organizations say.”
It’s the kind of statement that tells you more about the author’s perspective than the actual policy. The article highlights the recent rollback of CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) penalties as if it were a step backward. But for many motorists, this may represent a long-overdue recalibration—less about “gutting” efficiency and more about returning choice to consumers.
Automotive News quotes Tom Alongi, a partner at UHY and head of the firm’s Global Automotive Industry Group. The article neglects to mention that UHY has a vested interest in promoting electric vehicle adoption, having published a “Winning Electrification Strategy” in 2023. This context might help readers better interpret Alongi’s view that automakers will “begin to fall back into producing less efficient engines.”
But what does “less efficient” really mean? It’s a relative term. Some consumers view diesel or V8 engines as highly efficient—not necessarily in fuel economy but in power, durability, and utility. These options have been steadily pushed off the market due to regulatory burdens, despite meeting the needs of many American drivers.
Take the Ford Crown Victoria, for example—a full-size, six-passenger sedan with a V8 that served families, law enforcement, and fleets reliably for decades. Pulled from the market largely due to CAFE compliance challenges, it was available new in 2011 for about $30,000 (around $43,600 in today’s dollars). Its modern hybrid counterpart, the 2025 Toyota Crown, starts at $41,440 and offers a smaller engine, more complexity, and arguably less long-term value.
Even pickup trucks haven’t escaped this shift. In 2023, a Toyota Tacoma with a 3.5L V6 engine sold for $31,590. Today’s base Tacoma, now with a turbocharged four-cylinder engine to comply with fuel regulations, starts at $36,220—offering a modest 2 MPG improvement at a $4,600 premium. That’s the real cost of compliance.
These changes haven’t always made vehicles better—they’ve often made them more complicated and more expensive. Hybrid systems can reduce fuel consumption, but they also add weight, cost, and complexity, which may not make sense for all drivers. Lightweight, affordable cars like the Geo Metro once offered impressive mileage without the need for hybrid systems. But many such vehicles are now impractical to produce under modern safety and emissions regulations.
The rollback of fines for CAFE noncompliance—while controversial in some circles—might create breathing room for automakers to reintroduce vehicles that prioritize consumer preference over regulatory targets. The question isn’t whether efficiency is good. It’s whether one definition of efficiency should be mandated over others.
Fuel-efficient vehicles have always existed because there has always been demand for them. Consumers choose vehicles based on their own values—whether it’s fuel economy, power, utility, or comfort. The federal government’s role shouldn’t be to restrict those choices by artificially penalizing vehicles that don’t conform to a narrow definition of acceptable performance.
The auto industry is at a crossroads. If the goal is to serve drivers, then regulation must strike a balance—not push a one-size-fits-all solution at the expense of choice and affordability.
Editorial Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Motorists Association. We believe in fostering open dialogue and welcome diverse perspectives on issues affecting motorists. If you would like to submit a response or opposing viewpoint, we encourage you to contribute. Please email us at greg@motorists.org for submission guidelines.
