FIRST LOOK New York International Auto Show: Cool cars, but drivers still face sticker shock



The 2026 New York International Auto Show — which runs through this weekend — made one thing clear: There is a widening gap between what the auto industry is celebrating and what consumers are actually looking to buy.

Affordability has emerged as the dominant factor shaping purchasing decisions — far more than design awards, performance credentials, or cutting-edge features.

Some automakers are exploring ways to bring down costs without stripping vehicles down to bare-bones models.

What buyers really want

The show also serves as the stage for the World Car of the Year awards, where I serve as a juror.

This year, a survey of more than 100 jurors reinforced what we’re already seeing in the market: Consumers are prioritizing affordability above all else, along with flexibility in powertrain options — gasoline, hybrid, and electric.

That may not sound surprising. But it highlights a disconnect.

Many of the vehicles being recognized at the highest levels of the industry don’t necessarily align with what buyers are actively seeking in dealerships.

Award winners vs. market reality

This year’s top honors went to the BMW iX3, selected from 58 global contenders. It is expected to be built in South Carolina and made available to U.S. customers. The iX3 also took the electric category, featuring a redesigned cockpit with an integrated head-up display.

Other winners included the Mazda 6e for design, the Lucid Gravity for luxury, and the Hyundai Ioniq 6 N for performance. The urban category went to the Nio Firefly, a model not expected to be sold in the United States.

These vehicles represent innovation and engineering progress. But they also highlight the gap between industry recognition and everyday affordability.

Show and sell

Beyond the awards, NYIAS marked a return to traditional vehicle unveilings after several years of automakers favoring private events.

Brands used the show to showcase new concepts and production models aimed at capturing attention across multiple segments.

Hyundai revealed a rugged, Bronco-inspired concept that reflects a broader multi-powertrain strategy. Genesis introduced updated luxury trims and performance-oriented concepts. Volkswagen unveiled a redesigned 2027 Atlas, expected to be built in Chattanooga.

Other reveals included a higher-performance Z model from Nissan, a redesigned Seltos and entry-level EV from Kia, and a new dual-motor electric model from Subaru. Ford Motor Company also highlighted a special-edition Expedition marking the model’s 30th anniversary.

Across the show floor, automakers leaned heavily into design differentiation — illuminated logos, special editions, and expanded trim levels — all aimed at standing out in a crowded market.

The price isn't right

The biggest issue hanging over the show wasn’t design or technology — it was price.

Average transaction prices for new vehicles are now above $50,000. That reality is reshaping how consumers shop and what they’re willing to consider.

Automakers are starting to respond. Some are exploring ways to bring down costs without stripping vehicles down to bare-bones models, focusing instead on value — delivering features that matter while cutting excess.

'No' to tech overload

Another noticeable trend is a growing pushback against excessive in-vehicle technology.

While advanced features remain available, some buyers are moving toward simpler interiors and relying more on smartphone integration rather than built-in systems.

Subscription-based features are also facing increased scrutiny. Consumers are becoming more aware of long-term ownership costs — and less willing to pay ongoing fees for features they feel should be included upfront.

RELATED: How government and Big Tech can wreck your new car's resale value

Denver Post/Getty Images

EVs take a back seat

Electrification remains a major focus, but the tone is shifting.

Automakers are no longer presenting EVs as the only path forward. Instead, they’re balancing electric investments with hybrids and traditional gasoline options to better match real-world demand.

That flexibility is increasingly important to buyers who want options — not mandates.

Robo-stopped

Autonomous vehicle technology continues to develop, but widespread adoption remains limited.

While robotaxi services are expanding in select urban areas, challenges around safety, liability, and real-world performance continue to slow broader rollout.

For most consumers, fully autonomous driving is still a future concept — not a current buying factor.

For dealers and automakers alike, the message from this year’s show is clear: consumers are focused on affordability, flexibility, and simplicity.

Innovation still matters — but only when it aligns with what buyers can realistically afford and actually want to use.

Right now, the industry is still catching up to that reality.

Stellantis just blew $26 billion on bad EV bet



Stellantis is facing a financial reckoning that should send a warning across the global auto industry.

After betting that the electric vehicle transition would move faster than consumers were ready to follow, the company is now reporting a staggering $26.3 billion net loss for 2025 — driven largely by roughly $30 billion in write-downs tied to scaling back parts of its EV strategy.

As recently as 2023, some workers received nearly $14,000 in profit-sharing payouts. This year, they received nothing.

For a company that was profitable just a year earlier, the reversal is dramatic. Stellantis’ experience highlights the risks of building product strategies around aggressive electrification timelines shaped by government policy and optimistic forecasts rather than actual consumer demand.

Stellantis, the Amsterdam-based automaker formed in 2021, oversees 14 brands, including Jeep, Dodge, Ram, Chrysler, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Peugeot, and Citroën. With that kind of global footprint, its strategic decisions ripple across workers, suppliers, investors — and ultimately car buyers.

Electric slide

The company’s 2025 financial results show how quickly those bets can unravel. Net revenue totaled $181.1 billion, down 2% from the previous year. But the real damage appears on the bottom line: a $26.3 billion net loss replacing what had been a $6.5 billion profit the year before. Free cash flow turned negative by roughly $4.9 billion. Dividends were suspended, and profit-sharing checks for UAW workers disappeared.

As recently as 2023, some workers received nearly $14,000 in profit-sharing payouts. This year, they received nothing. When automakers absorb losses of this scale, the financial pressure eventually spreads through the entire system — from employees and suppliers to vehicle pricing and investment decisions.

Chief Executive Officer Antonio Filosa acknowledged the miscalculation directly, saying the results reflect “the cost of over-estimating the pace of the energy transition.” That unusually candid admission reflects a broader reality across the auto sector: Automakers, regulators, and investors collectively assumed EV adoption would accelerate faster than consumers, charging infrastructure, affordability, and political support would allow.

'Dare' or truth

The roots of the problem trace back to Stellantis’ “Dare Forward 2030” strategy under former CEO Carlos Tavares. The company set ambitious goals: 100% EV sales in Europe and 50% EV sales in the United States by 2030. To reach those targets, Stellantis invested billions in EV platforms, battery supply chains, and factory conversions.

Those investments were encouraged — and in some cases effectively required — by government mandates and regulatory timelines. But the strategy assumed that consumers would move to EVs at roughly the same pace as policymakers hoped.

That assumption proved overly optimistic.

EV adoption has grown, but not at the pace many projections predicted during the peak of electric vehicle enthusiasm. High vehicle prices, uneven charging infrastructure, rising insurance costs, and concerns about resale value have slowed adoption. As those concerns mounted, both Europe and the United States began easing some regulatory pressure tied to EV mandates.

When policy expectations change, automakers are left adjusting billions of dollars in investments that were made under very different assumptions.

Misery loves company

Stellantis was not alone in this miscalculation. Across the industry, automakers have announced more than $55 billion in EV-related write-offs. Reporting from the Financial Times estimates the broader financial toll of scaling back electrification plans — including restructuring costs and canceled programs — has reached roughly $65 billion. Ford alone has taken about $19 billion in charges connected to its EV reset, while General Motors and Volkswagen have also booked major write-downs.

Even in that context, Stellantis’ losses stand out. The company recorded about $25.9 billion in one-time charges, including nearly $20 billion tied directly to electric-vehicle programs, along with roughly $4.8 billion in warranty costs and other restructuring expenses. Those charges reflect a broad reset of the company’s strategy as Stellantis scrapped certain electric and plug-in hybrid models, revised production plans, and shifted investment back toward internal combustion and hybrid vehicles.

Buyers wanted

For consumers, these strategic resets matter because powertrain choices shape vehicle availability and pricing.

In North America, one of the clearest signals of Stellantis’ shift is the return of the 5.7-liter HEMI V8 engine. That move reflects continued demand for traditional powertrains, especially in high-margin truck and performance segments where buyers prioritize capability, reliability, and price over electrification targets.

In Europe, Stellantis is folding diesel and mild-hybrid gasoline options back into several models. Instead of betting exclusively on battery electric vehicles, the company is moving toward a broader powertrain strategy that includes EVs, hybrids, gasoline, and diesel options.

That shift reflects what many consumers have been saying throughout the transition: They want choices that fit their budgets, driving habits, and infrastructure realities.

RELATED: Hemi tough: Stellantis chooses power over tired EV mandate

Chicago Tribune/Getty Images

Smooth travels ahead?

Despite the enormous write-downs, there are early signs of stabilization. During the second half of 2025, after Filosa began unwinding elements of the prior strategy, Stellantis reported approximately $93.3 billion in revenue for the July-December period, a 10% increase year over year. Vehicle shipments rose 11% during that timeframe.

The company still reported an adjusted operating loss of roughly $1.6 billion during that period, but improved shipment volumes suggest the recalibrated strategy may be gaining traction.

The crisis did not develop overnight. It grew from several assumptions: that EV demand would rise steadily, that battery costs would fall fast enough to make EVs profitable, and that regulatory pressure would remain constant.

Instead, the transition has proven far more uneven. EV sales remain heavily dependent on subsidies, battery supply chains still rely heavily on China, and charging infrastructure remains inconsistent across many markets. When incentives shrink or economic conditions tighten, EV demand can slow quickly.

Workers feel the pain

For workers, the consequences are immediate. Because Stellantis posted a loss, UAW employees will not receive profit-sharing payouts this year. Across the Detroit Three, the average payout is about $6,200 — roughly 40% lower than prior averages near $10,000. For Stellantis workers, the payout is zero.

The broader lesson is not that electric vehicles have no role in the future. They do, and EV technology will continue to evolve.

But the assumption that internal combustion engines would disappear rapidly now looks unrealistic. Consumers ultimately determine the pace of change, and their priorities remain clear: price, reliability, convenience, charging access, and resale value.

Filosa has framed Stellantis’ reset around restoring “freedom to choose” across electric, hybrid, gasoline, and diesel technologies. That message reflects a shift toward building vehicles that align with real-world consumer demand rather than political timelines.

The cost of the earlier miscalculation is now measured in tens of billions of dollars. Whether the reset ultimately strengthens Stellantis or simply marks the beginning of a smaller product lineup will depend on how effectively the company balances innovation with consumer priorities.

In the end, the lesson is simple. Automakers can design new technologies and governments can set policy goals, but consumers still decide what succeeds in the marketplace.

Affordable cars still exist — but Americans can't buy them



The auto industry is marketed as global — same brands, same badges, same hype. It’s easy to assume we’re all shopping from the same menu.

We’re not.

BYD has now surpassed Tesla in global EV sales — even though BYD sells none of those vehicles in the United States.

On the latest episode of “The Drive,” iSeeCars.com executive analyst and Forbes Autos contributor Karl Brauer and I sit down with automotive creator Al Vazquez, whose Spanish-language platform gives him a vantage point most U.S. journalists don’t have.

He covers cars for the American press like we do — but he’s also regularly flown to Latin America and other markets to drive vehicles, many of them Chinese-branded, that Americans will never see on a dealer lot.

What he’s seeing raises a practical question for buyers here at home: What happens when other markets are flooded with cheaper, rapidly improving vehicles — while American consumers face higher prices and fewer straightforward options?

Bargains head east

Because Al’s channel is in Spanish, his reach extends across Latin America and into Europe. That audience brings invitations: Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Spain. And when he lands in those markets, he often finds himself driving cars unfamiliar to U.S. buyers.

A major reason: Chinese brands are no longer fringe players in many regions.

Al is blunt about the shift. Five to 10 years ago, he says, he would have dismissed many of these vehicles. Today he sees better interiors, stronger feature sets, and long warranties backing them up.

But the real story is price.

In several markets, buyers are offered vehicles that undercut U.S. pricing dramatically — sometimes at what he describes as “half the price” of comparable models here. Whether that pricing would survive U.S. regulatory and labor realities is another question. But for consumers abroad, the appeal is obvious: new-car affordability that hasn’t vanished.

That’s something American buyers increasingly struggle to find.

Redirecting competition

In the U.S., tariffs and dealer franchise laws make it difficult for Chinese automakers to sell directly here. But as Karl points out, barriers don’t eliminate competition — they redirect it.

If Chinese brands gain massive volume in Europe, South America, and elsewhere, they gain scale. Scale means supplier leverage, faster iteration, and more resources to improve product.

For American consumers, the implications are concrete:

  • If global competitors grow rapidly elsewhere, they get stronger — even without entering the U.S.
  • If the U.S. market remains more closed and more expensive, buyers here risk paying more while seeing less variety.

“Global competition” may sound abstract. But it shows up as pricing, features, and whether a truly affordable new car is even an option.

RELATED: No new cars under $50K? Thank the government

NurPhoto/Getty Images

Tesla or BVD?

We turn to Tesla, where reports suggest the Model S and Model X may be phased out amid slowing sales.

Al offers an international perspective. In places like Bolivia, he says, Tesla still signals status. Owning one means you’ve arrived. He also claims that Teslas sourced through China appear better assembled than some U.S.-market examples.

Karl widens the lens: BYD has now surpassed Tesla in global EV sales — even though BYD sells none of those vehicles in the United States. Meanwhile U.S. EV growth has cooled compared to earlier momentum.

For buyers, this is a lesson in how automakers respond to pressure. When margins tighten and competition intensifies, companies cut slower-selling models and redirect investment. The future shifts toward autonomy, AI, robotics, and software ecosystems.

Show and sell

Our conversation shifts to auto shows — Detroit, L.A., Chicago, New York — and whether they’re fading into irrelevance.

At their best, auto shows solve a real consumer problem: They let buyers compare multiple brands in one place, sit in vehicles without pressure, and evaluate options without a salesperson hovering nearby.

Al argues it’s a mistake to let that disappear. He points to Detroit’s recent rebound — smaller than its glory days, but active — and contrasts it with international shows that are still thriving. In Qatar, he says, the show was sold out with lines out the door.

Consumers increasingly delay visiting dealerships until they’ve narrowed their choices online. Auto shows provide something dealerships often can’t: a neutral comparison environment.

In an era obsessed with “experiential marketing,” there’s nothing more experiential than physically sitting in a dozen competing vehicles in a single afternoon.

Influencers or experts?

Al describes watching an influencer perform handstands in front of a Mustang — without mentioning the car itself.

It’s easy to roll your eyes, but it also illustrates the reality: Automakers now market vehicles through personality-driven content as much as traditional reporting.

Journalists report on the car. Influencers incorporate the car into their personal brand. Both models coexist.

For consumers, this shift changes the information landscape: more personality and less structured analysis.

This makes discernment more important. Buyers who want real trade-offs, cost analysis, and ownership implications still need to seek out sources focused on the vehicle — not just the vibe.

Fragmented markets

Al’s story is partly about media evolution — how a creator adapts from print to YouTube to TikTok and beyond. But the larger story is about fragmentation.

Some markets are getting cheaper new-car options faster than we are. Some brands are gaining global dominance without ever touching the U.S. Meanwhile American buyers face rising transaction prices, heavier regulation, and fewer places to comparison-shop freely.

The auto industry may be global, but your buying experience is still local — and increasingly shaped by forces that don’t always align with consumer affordability.

Listen to the full episode of “The Drive with Lauren and Karl” (featuring Al Vazquez) below:

No new cars under $50K? Thank the government



Americans are paying more for new vehicles — and it's not because of greedy dealers or temporary supply disruptions.

The real problem? The modern automobile has become a government-regulated platform.

This regulatory floor helps explain why many entry-level vehicles have disappeared. Automakers did not abandon affordable cars because Americans suddenly rejected them.

What once functioned primarily as personal transportation is now layered with federal mandates, compliance systems, and policy-driven technology. The cost of that transformation is embedded into every vehicle sold.

The average transaction price for a new vehicle now hovers around $48,000 to $50,000, according to Cox Automotive — nearly double what many Americans paid a decade ago. That figure is not driven primarily by dealership markups or consumer excess. It reflects a system in which regulatory requirements steadily raise the baseline cost of every vehicle before it reaches a showroom.

Dealers sell what they are allowed to sell. Consumers pay for what regulators require to be built.

Regulations stack

Unlike market innovation, federal mandates rarely replace older requirements. They stack. Safety rules, emissions standards, cybersecurity protocols, and connectivity requirements accumulate over time. Each new layer raises the minimum cost of building any vehicle, regardless of brand or segment.

Automakers no longer decide which technologies to include based solely on consumer demand. They build to regulatory specifications — and those specifications grow more complex every year.

Driver-assistance: No longer optional

Advanced driver-assistance systems are a clear example. Lane-keeping assist, automatic emergency braking, blind-spot monitoring, cameras, radar units, and onboard processors were once optional upgrades. Today most are standard across model lines due to evolving federal safety expectations and liability pressures.

These systems require sensors, software calibration, processors, and constant updates. They also increase repair costs. A recent study by AAA shows that vehicles equipped with advanced driver-assistance features can cost 20% to 40% more to repair after collisions, in part because sensors must be recalibrated or replaced.

Whether buyers want every feature is beside the point. The technology is built in.

RELATED: Would you buy a car from Amazon?

Nicolò Campo/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Engineering complexity

Emissions regulations add another layer. Even gasoline-powered vehicles now rely on increasingly sophisticated emissions control systems, specialized materials, and complex software calibration to meet tightening federal and state standards.

These systems improve measurable compliance outcomes, but they also increase engineering complexity and production cost. Manufacturers cannot legally offer simplified alternatives that fall outside regulatory thresholds.

Computers on wheels

Modern vehicles are now rolling computer networks. Federal standards increasingly require data systems, cybersecurity protections, over-the-air update capability, and integrated monitoring infrastructure.

Hardware, antennas, processors, software validation, and compliance testing all add cost. None of it is optional at scale. Once these systems are embedded into vehicle architecture, they become permanent cost centers.

'Kill-switch' costs

One of the least discussed provisions of the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act requires the installation of advanced driver monitoring systems designed to detect impairment in future vehicles. Critics have labeled this a “kill-switch” mandate because the rule requires technology capable of preventing operation under certain conditions.

Regardless of terminology, implementing such systems requires additional hardware, sensors, software integration, validation, and certification. Even before activation or enforcement details are finalized, the design and compliance costs are already being built into pricing structures.

When every manufacturer must comply, there is no competitive pressure to eliminate the expense.

Tariffs and supply chains

Tariffs compound the issue. Import duties on vehicles and automotive components affect not only foreign-built cars but also vehicles assembled in the United States that rely on global supply chains. Steel, aluminum, semiconductors, and specialized materials all move through international networks.

When tariffs raise component costs, those increases flow downstream. Automakers do not absorb them indefinitely. Dealers do not control them. Buyers ultimately pay.

Extinct entry-level

This regulatory floor helps explain why many entry-level vehicles have disappeared. Automakers did not abandon affordable cars because Americans suddenly rejected them. They exited those segments because compliance costs made lower-margin models difficult to sustain profitably.

When the baseline cost of meeting regulatory requirements approaches what buyers can reasonably pay for a basic vehicle, the product becomes economically unviable.

Shrinking used-car market

The used-car market offers limited relief. As new vehicles become more expensive, consumers hold onto existing cars longer. According to S&P Global Mobility, the average age of vehicles on American roads has climbed to nearly 13 years, an all-time high.

Fewer late-model trade-ins tighten supply. Prices rise. Regulatory-driven cost increases in the new-car market ripple outward and affect every segment.

EV expenses

Electric vehicles illustrate the same dynamic. Federal incentives, emissions targets, battery sourcing rules, and manufacturing credits shape production decisions and model availability. While battery costs have declined over time, compliance requirements and policy alignment continue to influence pricing and product mix.

For many households, the upfront cost of EVs remains significantly higher than comparable gasoline models — even after incentives.

Fixed costs

The expectation that prices will fall once supply stabilizes misunderstands how regulatory-cost structures function. Supply constraints can ease. Compliance costs rarely do.

As long as vehicles are treated as platforms for policy implementation rather than purely consumer goods, the floor price will continue to rise.

High vehicle prices are not simply a market fluctuation. They are, to a significant degree, a policy outcome.

And until policymakers reckon with the cumulative cost of regulatory layering, the $50,000 vehicle will increasingly become the norm — not the exception.

Your car can get hacked — here's how to protect yourself



Every year, cars become smarter, more connected, and more convenient. But that convenience comes with a hidden cost. Hackers are no longer focused only on computers and smartphones. Modern vehicles are rolling networks — gateways to your personal data, your finances, and in some cases, even physical control of the car itself. This threat is real, and most drivers are only beginning to understand how exposed they’ve become.

Today’s vehicles rely on complex software and constant connectivity. Features like remote start, navigation, hands-free driving, and vehicle tracking make life easier, but they also create new attack surfaces. A single weak link — a compromised app, outdated software, or a hacked key fob — can give criminals access to sensitive information, or worse.

The vehicle is tricked into believing a valid key fob is present, disabling the immobilizer and unlocking the doors in minutes.

This isn’t science fiction. In 2015, cybersecurity researchers demonstrated that hackers could remotely disable a Jeep while it was being driven on a highway. That incident triggered a nationwide recall and forced automakers to take vehicle cybersecurity seriously. Since then, attacks have grown more sophisticated, targeting not just vehicle controls but personal data, financial information, and location tracking.

Remote risk

At the center of every modern vehicle is the electronic control unit. Most cars contain multiple ECUs, controlling everything from braking and steering to door locks and infotainment systems. If a hacker gains access, the consequences can range from stolen data to direct manipulation of vehicle functions. While dramatic remote-control scenarios grab headlines, the most common real-world threats involve identity theft, financial fraud, and unauthorized tracking of a driver’s movements.

Hackers can gain access in several ways. Physical access is one method — such as plugging an infected USB device into a vehicle’s data port. Key fobs, especially older designs, can be cloned or exploited using devices that capture and replay their signals, allowing thieves to unlock and start a car without the original key.

Phoning it in

Smartphone apps introduce another layer of risk. A compromised phone can become a bridge into the vehicle and everything stored on the device. Telematics systems, which collect and transmit data about vehicle location and usage, can also be targeted by cybercriminals.

Law enforcement is seeing a rise in thefts using CAN bus injection attacks, particularly involving Toyota SUVs like the Land Cruiser and 4Runner. In these cases, criminals access wiring through headlights or taillights and connect a disguised electronic device. The vehicle is tricked into believing a valid key fob is present, disabling the immobilizer and unlocking the doors in minutes. These attacks bypass traditional security measures and show how vulnerable even modern “smart” key systems can be.

Automakers are responding with stronger cybersecurity tools, including encrypted communications, intrusion detection systems, and software updates. But drivers still play a critical role. Use only manufacturer-approved apps, keep your vehicle’s software up to date, and regularly review which devices and accounts have access to your car. Remove old devices and unnecessary permissions as soon as possible.

RELATED: How automakers are quietly locking you out of your own car

NurPhoto | Getty Images

Physical deterrents

There are also practical steps drivers can take to reduce risk. Using a virtual private network on devices that connect to your vehicle can help mask data traffic and limit exposure if a device is compromised. Physical deterrents still matter as well. Police often recommend visible tools like steering wheel locks, which can prevent theft even when electronic security is bypassed. Toyota, for example, offers a bright red steering wheel lock with four-point steel contact — an unmistakable signal that a vehicle isn’t an easy target.

Criminals increasingly use signal relay devices to capture and extend a key fob’s signal, tricking a car into thinking the key is nearby. Blocking that signal can stop the attack. Drivers can protect themselves by:

  • Storing key fobs in Faraday bags, pouches, or boxes that block radio signals;
  • Wrapping key fobs in aluminum foil as a temporary, low-cost solution;
  • Keeping fobs in metal containers, such as tins or lockboxes, at home;
  • Disabling the keyless entry signal when possible, according to the owner’s manual;
  • Manually locking the vehicle with a physical key when available; and
  • Avoiding third-party devices plugged into the OBD port, including insurance dongles, which can create security vulnerabilities.

The era of connected cars offers real convenience, but it also demands greater awareness. A hacked vehicle isn’t just a transportation problem — it’s a digital, financial, and safety issue. Staying informed, practicing basic cybersecurity habits, and taking simple protective steps can dramatically reduce risk. Cars may be smarter than ever, but keeping them secure still depends on the driver.

Start-stop stiffed: EPA kills annoying automatic engine shutoff



The EPA just delivered news that millions of fed-up American drivers have been waiting for: Automatic start-stop technology is no longer being propped up by federal regulation.

On February 12, 2026, President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced what the administration is calling the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history. The move scraps the Obama-era 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding and wipes out federal greenhouse-gas standards for vehicles dating back to model year 2012.

‘Mechanically, it’s a disaster waiting to happen. Constant restarts accelerate wear on starter motors — even reinforced ones.’

For everyday drivers, the practical consequence is simple and satisfying: The regulatory credits that encouraged automakers to jam start-stop systems into vehicles are gone.

‘Universally hated’

Zeldin didn’t mince words, calling start-stop an “almost universally hated” feature — an “Obama switch” that makes your engine shut off at every red light. Trump echoed the sentiment, blasting the policy as a regulatory disaster that drove up prices and forced unwanted technology on consumers. Even the EPA’s own announcement acknowledged what drivers have been saying for years: A feature that kills your engine at stops and jolts it awake again was never embraced voluntarily — it was incentivized.

For years, automakers chased roughly a 1-mile-per-gallon compliance credit tied to start-stop systems. On paper, it helped meet greenhouse-gas targets. In the real world, the fuel savings were often negligible outside of ideal lab conditions. Still, the feature spread everywhere — from sedans to SUVs to trucks — not because buyers demanded it, but because it was the cheapest way to check a regulatory box.

Consumers got the irritation. Automakers got the credit.

‘Disaster waiting to happen’

I asked ASE Master Technician Greg Damon what start-stop really does under the hood. His answer was blunt:

Mechanically, it’s a disaster waiting to happen. Constant restarts accelerate wear on starter motors — even reinforced ones. Batteries cycle harder and require more expensive replacements. Engine components face repeated stress, especially during warm restarts when lubrication isn’t instantaneous. In shops, mechanics see higher failure rates, specialized repairs, and higher bills. All of that complexity and cost to chase a single MPG on a spreadsheet.

Is 1 MPG worth higher sticker prices, increased maintenance costs, and shorter component life?

Drivers have already answered that question. Many disable the system every time they start the car — if the manufacturer even allows it. Some vehicles require a ritual button press; others hide any permanent shutoff entirely. Subaru owners, in particular, have flooded forums with complaints about hesitation and drivability issues. Reviews and social media tell the same story: This isn’t progress. It’s punishment.

RELATED: Sick of your 'eco-friendly' car turning off at every red light? So is Trump's EPA head

VCG/Getty Images

No incentive

After the ruling, I contacted major automakers. Their responses were identical — carefully scripted statements saying they would “review their strategy” if regulations changed. Well, the regulations have changed. Loudly. Publicly. And without ambiguity. With compliance credits vaporized, the financial incentive disappears. Expect manufacturers to quietly phase out start-stop or finally offer true, set-it-and-forget-it disable options.

The broader implications are enormous. The Trump administration projects more than $1.3 trillion in total regulatory relief, with per-vehicle compliance costs dropping by an estimated $2,400. Lower vehicle prices ripple through the entire economy. As Zeldin put it, the move restores consumer choice and eases cost-of-living pressure by removing mandates that distorted the market.

Other Clean Air Act rules governing traditional tailpipe pollutants remain in place. Emissions are not unregulated. What died here is the prescriptive, heavy-handed system that rewarded gimmicks like start-stop instead of genuine engineering improvements. Automakers now have room to pursue real efficiency — better engines, smarter hybrids, lighter materials, and improved aerodynamics — without sacrificing reliability or driver satisfaction.

Win for aftermarket

The automotive aftermarket wins too. An industry supporting more than 330,000 American jobs can breathe easier without constant compliance pressure steering vehicles away from serviceable, long-term ownership.

This is a win for common sense. Start-stop survived because Washington subsidized it, not because Americans wanted it. Without regulatory crutches, the feature faces the only test that matters: voluntary consumer demand. And the answer has always been clear.

If you’ve ever muttered under your breath at a red light while your engine shut off — then lurched back to life — this one’s for you. The era of government-mandated automotive irritation just took a fatal hit.

Newsom’s EV push: Can Detroit break free from California’s influence?



While Washington has pulled back on electric vehicle mandates and emissions enforcement, California is moving in the opposite direction — and the nation’s largest automakers are paying close attention.

Late last month. executives from the Detroit Three met with regulators from the California Air Resources Board, reopening a conversation that has become increasingly consequential for the future of the U.S. auto industry and consumer vehicle choice.

For automakers, the lesson is familiar. Regulatory swings are inevitable, but market access is permanent.

The meeting came at a pivotal moment. Congress has revoked California’s long-standing authority to set its own vehicle emissions standards, federal fuel economy rules have been weakened, and financial penalties for missing emissions targets have been eliminated. Yet California is signaling it has no intention of slowing its push toward zero-emission transportation.

Instead, the state is preparing to launch a $200 million electric vehicle incentive program aimed at offsetting the loss of the federal $7,500 EV tax credit and sustaining pressure on automakers to electrify their fleets.

Stuck with Sacramento?

For Detroit automakers, the calculus is complex. Federal relief has eased near-term compliance costs, but California remains the largest single automotive market in the country and a regulatory bellwether for more than a dozen other states. Ignoring Sacramento has never been a viable long-term strategy, regardless of which party controls Washington.

CARB Chair Lauren Sanchez underscored that reality in a recent interview, saying the state is accelerating its zero-emission agenda while attempting to balance environmental goals with workforce stability and industry constraints. That balance is becoming harder to maintain as political and legal battles reshape the regulatory landscape.

California’s influence dates back decades. Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, the state was granted unique authority to seek EPA waivers allowing it to impose stricter emissions standards than federal rules. Other states were permitted to adopt California’s standards, giving the state outsize influence over national vehicle design and production.

War on waivers

That authority has now been curtailed. Using the Congressional Review Act, Congress rescinded California’s Advanced Clean Cars II waiver, which would have required a phaseout of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035. Lawmakers also revoked waivers governing zero-emission heavy-duty trucks and stricter diesel emissions rules, while federal regulators halted penalties for automakers that miss tailpipe targets.

The financial implications are significant. General Motors has said the rollback of federal emissions rules could save the company up to $750 million — relief that matters in an industry facing high interest rates, slowing EV demand, and rising production costs.

California officials argue that short-term relief may come at a long-term cost. Weakening U.S. emissions and efficiency standards, they say, risks surrendering technological leadership to global competitors such as China, which has aggressively subsidized EV manufacturing and battery development.

From the state’s perspective, the new $200 million incentive program is meant to bridge a growing gap. With federal tax credits gone, EVs remain more expensive than comparable gasoline vehicles for many consumers, and EV sales have slowed nationwide. State incentives are intended to prevent demand from stalling further while encouraging manufacturers to continue investing in electrification.

Cooling demand

Automakers, however, are responding to a market that no longer aligns neatly with policy ambitions. Consumer interest in EVs has cooled, charging infrastructure remains uneven, and concerns about affordability, insurance costs, and resale values persist. In response, manufacturers are delaying some EV launches, scaling back production targets, and refocusing on hybrids and internal combustion vehicles that better match consumer demand.

That disconnect has fueled tension between California leaders and the auto industry. Governor Gavin Newsom sharply criticized GM last year after the company supported federal efforts to roll back California’s authority. GM, while welcoming federal regulatory relief, emphasized California’s importance as a market and reaffirmed its commitment to ongoing dialogue with state regulators.

The legal fight is far from over. California officials are preparing to challenge potential efforts to rescind the EPA’s “endangerment finding,” which underpins federal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Repealing it would mark one of the most consequential shifts in environmental policy in decades and would almost certainly trigger prolonged court battles.

At the same time, California has quietly pulled back some proposals. The state withdrew waiver requests that would have imposed strict locomotive emissions rules and accelerated diesel truck replacements, framing the move as a strategic effort to preserve flexibility while pursuing alternative regulatory and incentive-based approaches.

RELATED: GM’s $7 billon loss exposes gap between EV optimism and market reality

Bloomberg | Getty Images

A familiar lesson

For automakers, the lesson is familiar. Regulatory swings are inevitable, but market access is permanent. California’s economy rivals that of entire nations, and its policies continue to influence vehicle standards well beyond its borders. Even without formal waiver authority, the state retains powerful tools through incentives, procurement policies, and partnerships.

Detroit’s continued engagement reflects a recognition that today’s rollback may not be tomorrow’s reality. Political power shifts, court decisions evolve, and regulatory frameworks rarely stand still. Maintaining dialogue with California regulators is less about immediate concessions than long-term positioning in an industry with product cycles measured in decades.

As federal and state governments continue to diverge, automakers are left to bridge the gap. This week’s meetings may not resolve that tension, but they underscore a growing reality: California is pressing ahead with an agenda that increasingly outpaces consumer demand, infrastructure readiness, and market economics.

Incentives and mandates can shape product planning, but they cannot manufacture affordability or force trust. When policy consistently runs ahead of buyers, the result is not innovation — it is distortion. And the cost of that distortion is ultimately borne not by regulators, but by consumers.

Why Canada’s Chinese EV bet is a big mistake



Canada’s decision to slash tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles is being sold as a pragmatic trade adjustment. In reality, it looks more like a self-inflicted wound to the country’s auto industry, workforce, and long-term economic sovereignty.

Lower prices today may come at the cost of lost manufacturing tomorrow — along with vehicles that struggle with quality and cold-weather reliability in a country where winter is not a minor inconvenience but a defining reality.

A vehicle that looks competitive on paper may tell a very different story after several Canadian winters.

Under an agreement announced earlier this month, Canada will allow up to 49,000 Chinese EVs into the country each year at a tariff of just 6.1%, down from the 100% rate imposed in 2024.

Officials emphasize that this represents less than 3% of the domestic market. But auto markets are shaped at the margins. Even a relatively small influx of aggressively priced vehicles can disrupt pricing, undercut domestic producers, and discourage future investment.

Under pressure

Canada’s auto sector is deeply integrated with the United States, with parts, vehicles, and labor flowing across the border daily. That system has supported hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs for decades. Introducing low-cost Chinese imports into that ecosystem does not simply add consumer choice; it destabilizes a supply chain already under pressure from regulatory mandates, rising costs, and declining market share.

That pressure is already visible. The combined market share of General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis in Canada has fallen from nearly 50% to roughly 36%. These companies are not just brands on a dealership lot. They are employers, investors, and anchors for entire communities. When their market position erodes, the consequences ripple outward through plant closures, canceled expansion plans, and lost supplier contracts.

Cold comfort

Supporters argue that Chinese EVs will make electric vehicles more affordable, accelerating adoption and helping Canada meet emissions targets. But affordability without durability is a hollow promise. Many Chinese EVs entering global markets have yet to prove themselves in extreme climates. Cold weather is notoriously hard on batteries, reducing range, slowing charging times, and increasing mechanical stress — conditions Canadian winters deliver in abundance.

Reports from colder regions already using Chinese EVs raise concerns about performance degradation, software issues, and inconsistent build quality. Battery thermal management systems that perform adequately in mild climates can struggle in deep cold. Door handles freeze, sensors fail, and range estimates become unreliable. These are not minor inconveniences when temperatures plunge and drivers depend on their vehicles for safety as much as transportation.

Quality concerns extend beyond climate performance. Chinese automakers have made rapid progress, but speed has often come at the expense of long-term durability testing. Western manufacturers spend years validating vehicles under extreme conditions precisely because failure carries real consequences. A vehicle that looks competitive on paper may tell a very different story after several Canadian winters.

Cheap creep

There is also the question of what happens to Canada’s manufacturing base as these imports gain a foothold. History offers a clear lesson. When markets are flooded with low-cost vehicles produced under different labor standards and supported by state-backed industrial policy, domestic production suffers. Plants close, jobs disappear, and skills erode — losses that are extraordinarily difficult to reverse.

Europe offers a cautionary example. In the rush to meet climate targets, policymakers opened the door to inexpensive Chinese vehicles, only to see domestic automakers squeezed between regulatory costs and subsidized foreign competition. The result has been declining investment, layoffs, and growing concern about long-term competitiveness. Canada risks repeating that mistake but without Europe’s scale or leverage.

RELATED: Exclusive: 'Anti-China moves' pay off BIGLY — Governor Sanders and Arkansas earn A+ for crushing CCP land-grabs

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Image

Spy game

The geopolitical implications cannot be ignored. Modern EVs are data-collecting machines, equipped with cameras, sensors, GPS tracking, and constant connectivity. U.S. officials have repeatedly warned that Chinese-built vehicles pose national security risks. Whether or not those fears are fully realized, perception matters. The United States has already signaled that Chinese EVs will not be allowed across its border, even temporarily.

That leaves Canadian consumers in a difficult position. A vehicle purchased legally in Canada could become a barrier to travel, commerce, or even family visits. The idea that a car could determine whether a driver can cross the world’s longest undefended border should give policymakers pause. Instead the Carney government appears willing to accept that risk as collateral damage.

Realism over resentment

Some Canadians, frustrated by U.S. tariffs and rhetoric, may view this pivot toward China as an act of defiance. But trade policy driven by resentment rather than realism rarely ends well. Replacing dependence on the United States with dependence on China does not restore sovereignty; it simply shifts leverage from one superpower to another, often with fewer shared values and less transparency.

President Donald Trump has made his position clear. He is open to Chinese companies building vehicles in North America if they invest in domestic factories and employ domestic workers. What he opposes are imports that bypass production, undermine jobs, and introduce security risks. Canada’s deal does nothing to address those concerns. Instead it places Canadian workers and consumers squarely in the crossfire.

The promise of cheaper EVs may sound appealing in the short term, but the long-term costs are becoming harder to ignore. Lost manufacturing jobs, weakened supply chains, unresolved quality and cold-weather issues, and strained relations with Canada’s largest trading partner are not abstract risks. They are predictable outcomes.

Canada built its auto industry through integration, investment, and a commitment to quality. Undermining that foundation for a limited influx of low-cost imports is not a strategy. It is a gamble — and one Canadian workers, manufacturers, and drivers are likely to lose.

EPA to California: Don’t mess with America’s trucks



For decades, California has used its enormous market power to shape national vehicle policy, often pushing regulations far beyond its borders and into the daily lives of Americans who never voted for them. That long-running dynamic has now reached a critical moment.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is moving to block California’s latest attempt to regulate heavy-duty trucks nationwide — a proposal first announced in 2025 but now entering a decisive phase of federal review.

California’s early emissions standards helped accelerate cleaner engines and better fuel systems. But leadership can turn into compulsion.

With final EPA action expected in 2026, the outcome will determine whether California can continue using its borders as a regulatory choke point for interstate trucking, or whether federal limits will finally be enforced.

Freight fright

At issue is California’s Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance requirement, part of the state’s air-quality plan. The rule would apply not only to trucks registered in California, but to any heavy-duty vehicle operating within the state — including those registered elsewhere in the U.S. or even abroad. In practical terms, a truck hauling goods from Texas, Ohio, or Mexico could be forced to comply with California’s rules simply by crossing its borders.

The EPA has proposed disapproving that requirement, citing serious constitutional and statutory concerns.

This matters far beyond California. Heavy-duty trucks are the backbone of the American economy, moving food, fuel, medicine, building materials, and consumer goods across state lines every day.

Regulations that raise costs or restrict access for those vehicles ripple through supply chains and ultimately show up as higher prices at the checkout counter — including for online purchases. The EPA’s proposed action acknowledges that reality and draws a clear line between environmental policy and unlawful overreach.

Out of line

According to the agency, California’s proposal appears to violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents individual states from interfering with interstate trade. The Clean Air Act also requires state implementation plans to comply with federal law, and the EPA argues California’s approach fails that test. By attempting to regulate out-of-state and foreign-registered vehicles, California stepped into territory reserved for the federal government.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has been blunt in explaining the agency’s position. California, he has argued, was never elected to govern the entire country, yet its regulatory ambitions — often justified in the name of climate policy — have imposed higher costs on Americans nationwide. Allowing one state to dictate trucking standards for the rest of the country undermines both federal law and economic stability.

Foreigners too

There is also a foreign-commerce issue that rarely gets discussed. California’s rule would apply to vehicles registered outside the United States, even though authority over foreign trade and international relations rests exclusively with the federal government. That alone raised red flags and reinforced the EPA’s conclusion that the state exceeded its legal authority.

This proposed disapproval is part of a broader federal effort to rein in California’s emissions authority. In 2025, the Department of Justice filed complaints against the California Air Resources Board, arguing that the state was effectively enforcing pre-empted federal standards through informal agreements with manufacturers. Together, these actions reflect growing concern in Washington that California has relied on market leverage rather than lawful authority to achieve national policy outcomes.

Waiver goodbye

Waivers are central to this conflict. For years, California received special permission under the Clean Air Act to set its own vehicle emissions standards, with other states allowed to follow its lead. Under the previous administration, the EPA granted waivers for California’s Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, and Heavy-Duty Engine Omnibus NOx rules. Supporters framed them as environmental progress. Critics warned they would raise vehicle prices, limit consumer choice, strain the electric grid, and force changes the market was not ready to absorb — which is exactly what followed.

In June 2025, Congress overturned those waivers using the Congressional Review Act. That move sent a clear message: Vehicle standards should be national in scope, not dictated by a single state, regardless of its size or political influence. The EPA’s current review of California’s truck inspection rule builds directly on that message.

Supporters of California’s approach often point to the state’s historic role in improving air quality and advancing technology. That is true — up to a point. California’s early emissions standards helped accelerate cleaner engines and better fuel systems. But leadership can turn into compulsion, especially when it ignores regional differences, economic realities, and legal limits.

RELATED: Will Trump’s unconventional plan to stop the UN climate elites work?

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Recalibration

The heavy-duty truck sector makes this clear. Unlike passenger cars, trucks operate on thin margins and long replacement cycles. Fleet decisions are driven by reliability, infrastructure availability, and total cost of ownership. Mandating technologies before they are ready or widely supported does not accelerate progress; it creates higher costs and unintended consequences — especially when those mandates originate in a single state but affect national commerce.

The EPA’s move suggests that era may be nearing its end. By challenging California’s heavy-duty inspection requirement, the agency is asserting that environmental goals do not justify ignoring constitutional structure. Clean air matters — but so do the rule of law, economic practicality, and the free movement of goods across state lines.

The proposed disapproval remains open for public comment, after which the EPA is expected to take final action later this year. Whatever the outcome, the signal is unmistakable: Federal regulators are no longer willing to automatically defer to California when state ambition collides with national authority.

For truck drivers, fleet operators, manufacturers, and everyday consumers, this moment represents a recalibration. It reaffirms that vehicle regulation should be consistent nationwide — and that environmental policy works best when it respects both economic reality and the legal framework that holds the country together.

Jeep just pulled the plug on the hybrids — and no one is saying why



Jeep once bet big on electrification. The pitch was simple: Keep everything that made a Jeep a Jeep — capability, toughness, identity — while adding electric efficiency. For a brief moment, that bet worked.

The Wrangler 4xe didn’t just sell; it dominated. It became the best-selling plug-in hybrid in the U.S., proof that electrification could succeed when it respected consumer priorities instead of lecturing buyers. The Grand Cherokee 4xe followed, extending the same formula into a more refined family SUV without stripping away Jeep’s DNA.

Jeep owners are famously loyal. They tolerate compromises in ride and refinement for capability and character. What they won’t tolerate is silence.

Stellantis had managed what many automakers could not: Electrify without alienating loyal customers.

And then, almost overnight, they vanished.

Without a trace

Without warning or meaningful explanation, the Wrangler 4xe and Grand Cherokee 4xe disappeared from Jeep’s website. They can’t be ordered. EPA ratings for future model years are missing. Dealers are under stop-sale orders. More than 320,000 vehicles are tied up in recalls involving serious safety risks.

This is not how a confident automaker behaves. So what happened?

The 4xe lineup wasn’t a side project. It was central to Stellantis’ North American strategy — key to meeting fuel-economy rules while keeping Jeep profitable. The Wrangler 4xe, in particular, became a regulatory and marketing success story. Until reality caught up.

At the center is a massive recall affecting more than 320,000 Wrangler and Grand Cherokee 4xe models due to a high-voltage battery defect that increases fire risk. That alone is enough to halt sales and shake confidence.

Compounding the problem is a separate recall involving potential engine failure caused by sand contamination. Together, these aren’t isolated issues; they point to deeper quality-control problems in vehicles meant to represent Jeep’s future.

Alarming distinction

Owners have been raising concerns for months — electrical faults, warning lights, charging failures, erratic performance. Consumer Reports recently named the Wrangler 4xe the most unreliable midsize SUV in its annual survey, an alarming distinction for a brand built on durability.

In some cases, fixes amount to a software update. In others, the battery pack fails validation and must be replaced entirely. That difference matters. High-voltage batteries are among the most expensive components in any vehicle, and replacing them at scale creates serious financial strain — even for a global automaker.

For consumers, it raises uncomfortable questions about long-term ownership, resale value, and whether risks were passed on before these vehicles were truly ready.

RELATED: Hemi tough: Stellantis chooses power over tired EV mandate

Global Images Ukraine/J. David Ake/Getty Images

Good on paper

Plug-in hybrids were sold as the sensible middle ground — the stable bridge between internal combustion and full electrification. On paper, the Wrangler 4xe looked ideal: 375 horsepower, strong torque, and about 21 miles of electric-only range for daily driving.

What buyers didn’t sign up for was uncertainty.

The implications extend beyond Jeep. Stellantis invested billions in batteries, EV platforms, and software-driven vehicles. The 4xe lineup wasn’t optional; it was essential. When a segment leader quietly pulls its products, it sends a message that the challenges are deeper than advertised.

It also exposes the growing gap between political mandates and engineering reality. Automakers were pushed aggressively toward electrification before infrastructure and consumer demand were ready. Some products were rushed to meet timelines. When expectations collide with reality, trust erodes fast.

With regulatory pressure easing, hybrids are no longer a necessity — and Stellantis’ commitment to plug-ins appears to have cooled.

Loyalty test

Jeep owners are famously loyal. They tolerate compromises in ride and refinement for capability and character. What they won’t tolerate is silence. Removing vehicles without explanation feels less like caution and more like avoidance. Existing owners worry about support and resale value. Future buyers are questioning whether plug-in hybrids are really the smart compromise they were promised.

Stellantis may eventually fix the recalls and relaunch the models. But perception matters, and damage has already been done.

If Jeep wants consumers to believe in its electrified future, it will need more than quiet fixes and lifted stop-sales. It will need transparency, accountability, and proof that innovation doesn’t come at the expense of reliability.

Because hiding information isn’t leadership — and Jeep, of all brands, should know that.