Ford calls for harmonised global vehicle standards

[Madman]

Or rather, for the US to finally get on board with the rest of the planet.

It's worth noting that the USA is the only major developed country which never signed on to the World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations.  I mean, it's only been around since 1958.  Why rush into these things, right? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Forum_for_Harmonization_of_Vehicle_Regulations


Article here.....

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/03/ford-calls-for-harmonized-us-eu-standards/#more-480461

[cawimmer430]

I would have love have a 1974 Ford LTD Euro-spec! 

[veeman]

Makes sense.  More choice in the market is better.  I'd love to see some euro spec only imports like alpha romeo in the u.s.

[Eye of the Tiger]

The USA is also the only major developed country with an infrastructure so spread out that it practically makes private vehicles mandatory for anyone outside of a city center. Also, we pretty much rule the world and do whatever the fuck we want.

[Vinsanity]

The USA is also the only major developed country with an infrastructure so spread out that it practically makes private vehicles mandatory for anyone outside of a city center. Also, we pretty much rule the world and do whatever the fuck we want.

+ a million

What works for Europe is not necessarily the same as what works for the U.S.

[SVT666]

They're probably just talking about safety standards.

[280Z Turbo]

So all American cars will also be required to have a pillow mounted to the hood for clumsy and arrogant Frenchmen who hate cars?

[S204STi]

So all American cars will also be required to have a pillow mounted to the hood for clumsy and arrogant Frenchmen who hate cars?

[Raza]

So all American cars will also be required to have a pillow mounted to the hood for clumsy and arrogant Frenchmen who hate cars?

[ChrisV]

So all American cars will also be required to have a pillow mounted to the hood for clumsy and arrogant Frenchmen who hate cars?

No, what it's really asking for is reciprocity, that cars made to one standard are automaticaly accepted by the other. They aren't asking for all cars to be built the same, just that cars that meet European safety standards be accepted by the DOT and vice versa.

[MrH]

No, what it's really asking for is reciprocity, that cars made to one standard are automaticaly accepted by the other. They aren't asking for all cars to be built the same, just that cars that meet European safety standards be accepted by the DOT and vice versa.

Ha, good luck with that.  I'll believe it when I see it.


Since Madman likes to blindly throw his stupidity around, how about the British drive on the right side of the road too while we're at it?  And how about they stop with this pedestrian impact BS?  And how about ending the taxation based on displacement?

Europe's ridiculous rules and taxations are what's driving their market away from ours.  Why should we conform to their stupid rules?  We're a bigger market, there's no reason why we need to change for the worse to be like them.

[Madman]

What, exactly, is so "stupid" about having one uniform set of standards which makes it easier for manufacturers to build and engineer cars which are sold around the world?  True, it would be even better for car makers if the entire world drove on the same side of the road, too.  However, it's too late to address that issue without causing major chaos among at least a quarter of the drivers in the entire world.

What Ford is calling for is uniformity in regards to things like lights, instrumentation, bumpers, emissions, passenger restraint systems and the like.  Don't worry, you can still have your gas-guzzling 7.0 litre V8s.  Nobody is going to make you drive a turbodiesel Smart car!

Let's face it, the US does have some pretty stupid rules when it comes to cars.  Take the little brake warning light on the dash, for example.  Anywhere else in the world, the brake warning light has a little pictogram of a brake disc on it.  But this isn't "good enough" for America.  No, the US DOT requires the brake warning light to have the word BRAKE written on it.  And that's just one of many hundreds of examples where car makers have to develop, engineer and manufacture special parts and components just for the US.  Imagine you run a car company and think of all the added costs and complexity associated with having to make your product conform to two different (and often conflicting) sets of regulatory standards.  Now think of the money you could save if you only had to worry about one set of standards.

Uniformity of vehicles standards just makes sense on so many levels.  It will mean lower costs and, potentially, greater choice for the consumer.  Everybody wins!

[SVT666]

What, exactly, is so "stupid" about having one uniform set of standards which makes it easier for manufacturers to build and engineer cars which are sold around the world?  True, it would be even better for car makers if the entire world drove on the same side of the road, too.  However, it's too late to address that issue without causing major chaos among at least a quarter of the drivers in the entire world.

What Ford is calling for is uniformity in regards to things like lights, instrumentation, bumpers, emissions, passenger restraint systems and the like.  Don't worry, you can still have your gas-guzzling 7.0 litre V8s.  Nobody is going to make you drive a turbodiesel Smart car!

Let's face it, the US does have some pretty stupid rules when it comes to cars.  Take the little brake warning light on the dash, for example.  Anywhere else in the world, the brake warning light has a little pictogram of a brake disc on it.  But this isn't "good enough" for America.  No, the US DOT requires the brake warning light to have the word BRAKE written on it.  And that's just one of many hundreds of examples where car makers have to develop, engineer and manufacture special parts and components just for the US.  Imagine you run a car company and think of all the added costs and complexity associated with having to make your product conform to two different (and often conflicting) sets of regulatory standards.  Now think of the money you could save if you only had to worry about one set of standards.

Uniformity of vehicles standards just makes sense on so many levels.  It will mean lower costs and, potentially, greater choice for the consumer.  Everybody wins!

Madman's first and only rational and well thought out post is one I have to agree with.

[Madman]

Madman's first and only rational and well thought out post is one I have to agree with.

Hey! 

[MrH]

What, exactly, is so "stupid" about having one uniform set of standards which makes it easier for manufacturers to build and engineer cars which are sold around the world?  True, it would be even better for car makers if the entire world drove on the same side of the road, too.  However, it's too late to address that issue without causing major chaos among at least a quarter of the drivers in the entire world.

What Ford is calling for is uniformity in regards to things like lights, instrumentation, bumpers, emissions, passenger restraint systems and the like.  Don't worry, you can still have your gas-guzzling 7.0 litre V8s.  Nobody is going to make you drive a turbodiesel Smart car!

Let's face it, the US does have some pretty stupid rules when it comes to cars.  Take the little brake warning light on the dash, for example.  Anywhere else in the world, the brake warning light has a little pictogram of a brake disc on it.  But this isn't "good enough" for America.  No, the US DOT requires the brake warning light to have the word BRAKE written on it.  And that's just one of many hundreds of examples where car makers have to develop, engineer and manufacture special parts and components just for the US.  Imagine you run a car company and think of all the added costs and complexity associated with having to make your product conform to two different (and often conflicting) sets of regulatory standards.  Now think of the money you could save if you only had to worry about one set of standards.

Uniformity of vehicles standards just makes sense on so many levels.  It will mean lower costs and, potentially, greater choice for the consumer.  Everybody wins!

You're so overtly biased, it pains me to read these posts.

There's just as many idiotic european standards as there are American.  Whether a warning light says "BRAKE" or not, especially with how many gauges are going the route of LCD screens, is not a huge cost driver.

I work in the auto industry, and I deal with the production of global vehicles daily.  I'd like to hear these "hundreds" of things that drive so much cost into US vehicles.  Europe's regulations, RHD, and taxation drives a whole lot more cost for the OEMs than a warning light having the word BRAKE on it.

You've yet to provide a good reason as to why we should be conforming to them, and not them to us.

[SVT666]

You're so overtly biased, it pains me to read these posts.

There's just as many idiotic european standards as there are American.  Whether a warning light says "BRAKE" or not, especially with how many gauges are going the route of LCD screens, is not a huge cost driver.

I work in the auto industry, and I deal with the production of global vehicles daily.  I'd like to hear these "hundreds" of things that drive so much cost into US vehicles.  Europe's regulations, RHD, and taxation drives a whole lot more cost for the OEMs than a warning light having the word BRAKE on it.

You've yet to provide a good reason as to why we should be conforming to them, and not them to us.

Pretty sure he didn't say that.  He was just using that as an example.

[Cookie Monster]

Why can't we just have it so that either is acceptable? That way the automakers can decide if they want BRAKE or a brake disc icon instead.

The same could go for everything.

[MrH]

Pretty sure he didn't say that.  He was just using that as an example.

A poor example because it doesn't drive cost anywhere near the levels the European standards do.  If you're going to pitch this as a cost savings, then don't give me one poor example out of "hundreds" for your side only.

[Madman]

There's just as many idiotic european standards as there are American.

This is true.  But wouldn't it be easier for the manufacturers to only have to worry about one set of idiotic standards?

You've yet to provide a good reason as to why we should be conforming to them, and not them to us.

Why should a country of 300 million get to dictate to the other six billion?  Attitudes like this are why the rest of the world hates us.

Sure there could be room for compromise on certain things.  But does a manufacturer gain anything by, for example, having to develop a completely different set of headlights just for America?  It's this sort of counterproductive duplication which drives up costs for no real benefit.  As someone who supposedly works in the industry, you should understand better than most people the advantages that would come about as a result of implementing uniform global standards.

[280Z Turbo]

There will be no cost savings if European laws require more expensive components.

[93JC]

Why should a country of 300 million get to dictate to the other six billion?

Biggest car market in the world, that's why.

Well, biggest first-world car market in the world. Technically most cars in the world are sold in China. Should we adopt China's automotive 'standards'? 

[Madman]

There will be no cost savings if European laws require more expensive components.

The World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations is a global treaty, signed by nearly every car producing country on Earth, with the notable exception of the United States.  These aren't European standards, these are Global standards.  Canada, being the sensible and pragmatic nation they are, accepts both US and International standards.

Secondly, how would International standards require more expensive parts?  Does it cost any more to make a global-spec headlamp than it does to make a US-spec one?  I doubt it.  If anything, there would be a cost saving because manufacturers could eliminate needless duplication by not having to develop and produce the same part twice over.

Seriously, this is a no-brainer.  One set of rules is better than two.  Why are we even debating this?

[93JC]

Canada, being the sensible and pragmatic nation they are, accepts both US and International standards.

Uh, no. Canada has its own standards, which are mostly broadly the same as the US standards but much looser. ECE headlights are allowed in Canada, with some restrictions. "International" instrument warnings pictograms are allowed. That doesn't mean everything is accepted. Nor does it mean that everything required of the two sets of standards are required in Canada. There is no requirement that cars have airbags, for instance.

[Madman]

Uh, no. Canada has its own standards, which are mostly broadly the same as the US standards but much looser. ECE headlights are allowed in Canada, with some restrictions. "International" instrument warnings pictograms are allowed. There is no requirement that cars have airbags.

It still sounds more sensible than the "My way or the highway" American approach.  One of many reasons why I like Canada!

[280Z Turbo]

The World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations is a global treaty, signed by nearly every car producing country on Earth, with the notable exception of the United States.  These aren't European standards, these are Global standards.  Canada, being the sensible and pragmatic nation they are, accepts both US and International standards.

Secondly, how would International standards require more expensive parts?  Does it cost any more to make a global-spec headlamp than it does to make a US-spec one?  I doubt it.  If anything, there would be a cost saving because manufacturers could eliminate needless duplication by not having to develop and produce the same part twice over.

Seriously, this is a no-brainer.  One set of rules is better than two.  Why are we even debating this?

EU halogen headlamps require leveling motors whereas NAS halogen does not. So yes.

I'm not aware of any universal standard for automotive lighting. There is ECE, DOT, CCE, and Japan has their own standards as well.

[SVT666]

It still sounds more sensible than the "My way or the highway" American approach.  One of many reasons why I like Canada!

Oh Fuck me, Madman likes Canada.  I'm gonna shoot myself now.  FUCK!  I don't have a gun.

[93JC]

It still sounds more sensible than the "My way or the highway" American approach.  One of many reasons why I like Canada!

Canada has standards which match neither the European nor US standards. For example the old bumper standard. I know you've complained in the past about cars in North America having much larger bumpers than overseas cars. Since 1983 that was solely the result of the Canadian standard, which mandated the same 8 km/h (5 mph) standard that was introduced in the US in 1972 (and rescinded in 1982) until 2009.

[SVT666]

Uh, no. Canada has its own standards, which are mostly broadly the same as the US standards but much looser. ECE headlights are allowed in Canada, with some restrictions. "International" instrument warnings pictograms are allowed. That doesn't mean everything is accepted. Nor does it mean that everything required of the two sets of standards are required in Canada. There is no requirement that cars have airbags, for instance.

Although we do require DRLs and we have stricter requirements for car seat anchors.  A lot of cars when imported privately, must have new anchors installed.  We also require electronic immobilizer systems for vehicles built after September 2007 and there has to be metric on the speedometer.  Those are the only things that must be done when importing a car from the US. 

[MrH]

Seriously, this is a no-brainer.  One set of rules is better than two.  Why are we even debating this?

No shit it's better with one set of rules.

You're the one making the assumption that the Euro rules are inherently simpler and cheaper. We're here to tell you you're wrong.

[Madman]

No shit it's better with one set of rules.

You're the one making the assumption that the Euro rules are inherently simpler and cheaper. We're here to tell you you're wrong.

I never said anyone's set of rules were simpler or cheaper.  I only questioned why 6 billion people had to bend to the will of a country of only 300 million.