President Trump’s recent actions to roll back Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards for gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles entering service in 2031 offered a welcome reprieve to auto manufacturers struggling to meet the federal mandates.

The president’s aim is to direct the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) to abide by a 34.5 miles per gallon overall fleet fuel economy average instead of the 50.4 mpg mandate set under the Biden administration. The change is publicly billed as a tool to reduce the cost of vehicles by restoring some sense of marketplace influence on what had been a head-long push to electrify the nation’s fleet of cars and trucks regardless of cost to the public. 

If enacted, the new standards will give automakers much-needed breathing room to refine some of the engineering they fielded specifically to meet the higher standards. We hope it will also give them time to solve the many dependability problems plaguing their very complex engine designs.

From widespread catastrophic crankshaft and main bearing failures found on GM’s popular 6.2 L-87 V8, and Ford’s seemingly-ever-present challenges with its variable valve timing on EcoBoost V6 engines – the problems are rampant on vehicles driven by the nation’s farmers and ranchers. While automakers complain of the billions spent on recalls — and subsequent lawsuits — downtime in agriculture, forestry, mining and construction represents untold millions in expense to small businesses and the nation’s overall economy.

While automakers are directly responsible for their products and their warranties, sometimes what works in computer design exercises and what works day-after-day in the field are miles apart.

For instance, to reduce parasitic drag within an engine, designers have specified lubricating oils of lighter viscosity, while at the same time reducing clearance tolerances of internal moving parts. The reasoning is simple and the cause noble – less friction more efficiency and less fuel burned.

In the case of GM’s L-87 main bearing woes, however, the company now tells NHTSA it is recommending a 0W40 oil, instead of much “thinner” 0W20 and 0W30 oils for engines that have not experienced failure. Also, GM is looking into main bearing design and quality control.

Thinner motor oil breakdown also seems to be part of Ford’s costly valve-train problems according to mechanics who suggest high-wear on cam phasers (the controller of efficiency-boosting variable valve timing systems) reduces overall lubrication to overhead cams and valves. 

Both GM and Ford have build millions of engines over the past 60 years and, with the exception of the embarrassing Chevy Vega 4-cylinder for GM, and the infamous 3-valve 5.4L Triton V8 for Ford, their powerplants have been stalwarts for dependability and ease of repair. Those engines and their fuel and ignition systems were simple, which made them easy to repair. Stringent emission and fuel standards (political challenges vs. engineering realities), however, have pushed OEMs into increasingly-more-complex designs and a move toward much smaller displacement powerplants to do the work of legacy V8s which just “worked” with normal maintenance.

A friend once quipped, “You can move a house with a mouse if you have a big enough whip!” I think of that statement every time I see a work truck with a Class II trailer hitch and under the hood rests a 2.7L engine. Coming from a background that held “There’s no substitute for cubic inches” I wonder how long the “mouse” in that work truck can move the “house” without collapsing from exertion. 

The driving public hates the Auto Engine Shutoff, installed by OEMs to prevent “unnecessary idling” at stop lights all in the name of saving fuel (if you sit long enough at a stop light). It’s a “fuel saving device” that demands a much heavier, and more expensive than necessary, starter to withstand the increased wear and tear of stop- and-go traffic. Powering that starter is a $300 (very heavy) battery the size of a carry-on suitcase. Who pays for this stuff? The vehicle owner who never asked for the system but was required to buy it because the OEM was under the regulatory gun to “do something” about fuel economy. 

Remember the spare tire? Gone, all in the name of fuel economy.

While trucks are the primary focus of farmers and ranchers, their families drive front-wheel drive SUVs and crossovers –a design promulgated to reduce weight and improve fuel economy. To better tuck engine/transaxle assemblies in ever-smaller vehicle bodies, engineers have placed coolant pumps (“water pumps” to we Boomers) inside the engine block, necessitating complete engine removal to service the pump. Likewise, to save space in tiny engine blocks, one manufacturer powers the oil pump (Remember the lubrication woes we discussed?) with a rubber belt installed deep inside the engine – a service technician’s dream!

The bone-headed examples are many, and it’s not likely the current engine designs are going to be replaced anytime soon. Still, the next 5 years would be a great time for OEM’s go on recess to ponder engine serviceability and longevity with an eye toward simplification. When 2031 rolls around, that magic number is 34.5, and Electric Vehicles likely won’t be there in quantities to help meet the goal. Let’s hope for a renaissance of design excellence to help us look back at the 2020s and laugh.