Ford calls for harmonised global vehicle standards

[Soup DeVille]

All (legal) HIDs are self leveling.

And customers don't like to pay for three color lens tools, I guess.

The S2000s weren't. Of course, that was a 2001 model...

[280Z Turbo]

That post is very old.

[Soup DeVille]

That post is very old.

And I'm slow. What of it?

[280Z Turbo]

It's expired.

[280Z Turbo]

It was my assumption that all HIDs were self leveling because I don't know why automakers would pay for the motors unless they had to.

[Soup DeVille]

It was my assumption that all HIDs were self leveling because I don't know why automakers would pay for the motors unless they had to.

That's reasonable enough, I guess. I just don't know why some are and some aren't. I can't believe self-adjusting headlights sell many cars.

[Madman]

Looks like the push for harmonised regs is gaining steam as automakers on both sides of the Atlantic lobby US-Euro free trade pact negotiators to come together on safety regs.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/12/u-s-euro-automakers-lobby-free-trade-pact-negotiators-to-harmonize-safety-regs/


Meanwhile, Mercedes Benz is urging Canada to adopt EU-style regulations.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/12/mercedes-benz-urges-canada-to-adopt-eu-regulations-as-part-of-free-trade-agreement/

[SVT666]

We would never adopt EU regs since we are so closely tied to the US.

[12,000 RPM]

Whose regs are more stringent? And will those be retroactive so we can import some thangs? I want an E46 CSL.

[Madman]

Whose regs are more stringent? And will those be retroactive so we can import some thangs? I want an E46 CSL.

The US requires some things international regs don't (side marker lamps, for example) and there are some international requirements (such as side mounted turn signal repeaters and rear fog lamps) which the US doesn't require.  One of the biggest differences concerns headlamp construction and beam pattern.  So it's really not a question of whose rules are better.  Its just that both sides have found slightly different solutions to the same problem and, up until now, neither side has been been willing to accept the other side's ideas.  It's the classic NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome at work here.

[MX793]

The US requires some things international regs don't (side marker lamps, for example) and there are some international requirements (such as side mounted turn signal repeaters and rear fog lamps) which the US doesn't require.  One of the biggest differences concerns headlamp construction and beam pattern.  So it's really not a question of whose rules are better.  Its just that both sides have found slightly different solutions to the same problem and, up until now, neither side has been been willing to accept the other side's ideas.  It's the classic NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome at work here.

It goes beyond lighting.  There are differences in safety regulations as well.  Europe has the much maligned pedestrian safety requirements that the US doesn't (although these only apply to cars produced in sufficiently large quantities, boutique cars and exotics are generally exempt due to their low volume nature).  I don't believe Europe requires driver or passenger airbags, or at least they don't require them of low volume models, while the US requires them in every road-going vehicle.  Europe also doesn't have the 5 mph bumper regulations that the US has.

There are differences in emissions as well, with Europe mostly concerned with CO2 emissions while the US places more controls on particulates and hydrocarbon emissions, with less emphasis on CO2.

[Madman]

US automakers lobby to streamline US-EU regulations.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/07/domestic-automakers-lobby-to-streamline-us-eu-safety-regulations/


$42 MILLION.  That's what it costs to make a 2013 US car compliant with Euro regulations.  I'm guessing they're talking about the Ford Fusion, just released in Europe as the new Mondeo.  That's just CRAZY!


From Automotive News.....


Industry goal in trade talks: Harmonized regs

Wiping out U.S.-EU rules disparities would yield big savings

WASHINGTON -- $42 million.

That's how much one automaker spent to change 100 parts and do the additional design and development needed to make a popular 2013 U.S. vehicle comply with European safety regulations, so it could be sold across the Atlantic, according to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

And all that money makes little difference in overall safety, researchers say.

That's why automakers are pushing their governments to streamline safety regulations in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership free-trade deal the U.S. and European Union are negotiating. With the prospect of new regulations on autonomous driving technologies, the industry views the talks as a critical opportunity to bring harmony to the disparate rules.

"We are at an important inflection point in automotive regulations," said Matt Blunt, the former Missouri governor who lobbies on trade issues for the Detroit 3 as president of the American Automotive Policy Council in Washington.

Blunt and his counterparts from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association were in Brussels this month to press their case with negotiators from both sides during the tenth round of the trade talks.

Big money is at stake. Eliminating the regulatory disparities would save automakers hundreds of millions of dollars in costs currently sunk into re-engineering vehicles for each market.

It also would boost U.S.-EU auto trade by 20 percent, according to a recent study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, because automakers could more easily afford to sell even low-volume products in overseas markets.

The two sides wouldn't have to agree on a single set of rules. The goal is "mutual recognition of one another's regulatory standards," Blunt said. "We believe they both achieve the same high safety outcomes in both economies."

A regulatory analysis by the Center for Automotive Research found that U.S. and EU vehicle regulations differ in ways that require automakers to make more than two dozen design or engineering changes for the two markets. Fourteen of those differences require minor changes to components or designs, such as a U.S. rule requiring a release latch inside the trunk to allow a trapped person to escape, which Europe does not require.

Different roads and rules

Disparities and nuances in vehicle safety regulations in the U.S. and European Union require automakers to re-engineer vehicles in many ways for the 2 markets. Some examples
• Minor changes: Bumpers, A-pillars, airbags, radio frequencies, wipers, internal labeling, mirrors, vehicle noise, seat belts, door latches
• Considerable changes: Headlights, hood latches, sensors, center console padding, fender design for reflectors, roof energy absorbers, seat designs to accommodate child seats, license plate mounts, fuel systems, rear-seat crash protections, emissions standards, occupant ejection mitigation
• Major changes or design considerations: Small-overlap crash mitigation, front-end load path design, roof structure design
Source: Center for Automotive Research

Others, such as differing headlight rules, require "considerable" component or subsystem changes, and a few involve "major design considerations," such as tougher U.S. rules on roof structures.

Yet the Peterson study found that despite the differences, the regulatory regimes "are not significantly different in terms of the safety outcomes they deliver." Instead, the study found that factors such as road quality, terrain, law enforcement and even weather had a far greater effect on road safety as measured by fatality rates.

Even so, getting regulators to endorse their counterparts' standards will be difficult. In part, that's because they take very different approaches to regulation.

In Europe, vehicles must pass government crash tests and inspections prior to sale. In the U.S., automakers must certify that their vehicles conform to federal standards. If lapses are found, they would face fines or recalls.

"We recognize there are going to be some instances where it's not going to be easy to recognize one another's standards," Blunt said, "but that should be our aspirational goal."

Jennifer Thomas, vice president of federal government affairs for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers who also lobbied negotiators in Brussels, says harmonizing rules will help cement U.S. and EU regulators as the definitive authors of future regulations.

"In terms of the bigger global picture," she said, "it's a way to ensure that the U.S. and EU are global standard setters."


http://www.autonews.com/article/20150725/OEM/307279968/wiping-out-u-s-eu-rules-disparities-would-yield-big-savings