REPORT: Jeep Wrangler safe from CARB "Cool Cars" proposal
Remember California's "Cool Cars" regulation? Coming into force in 2012, the rule requires manufacturers to install windows that prevent 45% of the sun's energy from entering a vehicle by 2014, and 60% by 2016. It's the law that no one thinks is cool at all. In a minor victory against The Golden State's increasingly severe environmental regulations (and we live there and love it, but still...), the soft-top Jeep Wrangler has reportedly been given an exemption.
Specifically, any flexible plastic window is exempt. Said a CARB representative, "If the plastic windows are rigid, they must comply with the same standards as glass windows, beginning with the 2012 model year." If not for the flexible-window exemption, Chrysler wouldn't have been allowed to sell the Wrangler in California with the soft top because its plastic windows would have been non-compliant. Chrysler's Global Electric Motorcars (GEM) were also threatened, but are now safe from the regulation as well.
As for the other issue -- radio wave interference that degrades GPS and other signals -- CARB said it hasn't found any such problems in its testing. But who knows, now that the Jeep gets a pass, carmakers might just put flexible windows in every car sold in CA ... and how cool would that be?
[Source: The Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
zamafir 2:38PM (10/25/2009)
exemption? hrm. cue grumpy comments even though the wrangler is safe in 3... 2...
Reply
AngeloD 3:24PM (10/25/2009)
CARB's exemption for the Wrangler is a small flower poking its head above a vast sea of feces. What about the added nationwide costs for all other cars for this stupid proposal? Manufacturers aren't likely to install different glass just for California cars.
The commerce clause was designed to prevent exactly this scenario: one State imposing its regulations on all others engaged in interstate commerce. Let's hope SCOTUS revisits this issue soon.
Farmboy 3:46PM (10/25/2009)
Grrrrr.. aarrrfrgggg nomonmooonnnn blahblahblahmmmmmmmm........ahahahahahahahahahha I hope that this is a good summary of what will occur.
heltersceltic 4:07PM (10/25/2009)
Why is the photo of a UK version (with fender extensions and RHD wipers)?
some1 4:13PM (10/25/2009)
They need to get over it and just BAN A/C....
Then, in a few years, they can ban cars all together. Maybe they will ban cows along with that, cow farts cause global warming!
why not the LS2LS7? 5:59PM (10/25/2009)
AngeloD:
CARB is not imposing anything on other states. This is only for cars sold in California, not manufacturered in California for other markets.
If you want to sell into a market, you have to meet the law there. You might as well say that charging sales tax on cars in California is a violation of other states' rights.
AngeloD 6:06PM (10/25/2009)
Quote: """CARB is not imposing anything on other states. This is only for cars sold in California, not manufacturered in California for other markets."""
Well again, CARB's regulations often become a defacto nationwide standard where it is too expensive for a car maker to build a CA specific model. And at least eight other states that I know of use the CA standards for cars sold in their markets.
So again, we have individual states setting individual standards, something that the commerce clause was explicitly intended to prevent.
why not the LS2LS7? 9:27PM (10/25/2009)
De facto isn't the same as de jure. There's no legal stance for stopping de facto standards. There's no onus put on automakers for selling into other states that they couldn't shirk by not selling cars in California.
California is not stopping any other state from doing anything.
How come people such as yourself want to dump on California and then also rely on California to lower the cost of producing cars to sell into your own state? California doesn't owe you this. If states could owe favors to each other, what kind of favors would your state owe to California for what it has done for yours in the past vis-a-vis economies of scale and prices?
State's rights applies equally when it works against you as when it works for you. Don't be a hypocrite.
some1 7:39AM (10/26/2009)
LS2LS7,
"If you want to sell into a market, you have to meet the law there. You might as well say that charging sales tax on cars in California is a violation of other states' rights."
sales tax is not something that forces a company to retool, and redisign in an effort to sell their cars. bad comparison...
Generally, since cars are created and sold for a large area, the constant nipping from california has become somewhat annoying. EVERYONE knows that the auto companies will build for all states. And no one, not even cali thinks that they auto companies will change that. And even if they did, the cost for the company to R/D and retool for cali production, would end up being slapped on the price tag of cars sold everywhere.
Cars should fall under a federal standard, along with gas. Cali has a never ending list of pointless crap they want to add to cars, when they should be spending more time figuring out how to end their bankrupt status.
Just because Cali is a large market, does not give them any more right than any other state. However pointless or important their idea's may be, they should go through the feds to have it changed... They basically hold the country hostage with their sales volume.
Jim 2:48PM (10/25/2009)
That the GEM vehicles were under the gun just goes to show how poorly-thought-out this proposal is.
I mean, the point of it somewhat makes sense; you waste a lot of fuel running the A/C to cool down the interior on a hot day; but as the Detroit News points out the GEM cars don't have A/C (and are electric to boot) so it's ludicrous that they would be affected by this proposal.
Reply
PJ 2:52PM (10/25/2009)
"But who knows, now that the Jeep gets a pass, carmakers might just put flexible windows in every car sold in CA... "
Really determined to keep this molehill looking like a mountain, aren't we, Autoblog?
Reply
Farris 6:13PM (10/25/2009)
Or they could just, you know, be making a joke...
Brian05SEL 7:15PM (10/25/2009)
I'm not so sure; it's widely reported that plastic windows are known by the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects... and so do Jeep Wranglers, coincidentally!
P.V. 3:07PM (10/25/2009)
It's a good first step in the right direction.
Reply
Rich 10:38AM (10/26/2009)
Level: try to understand basic physics before commenting again you dope. Your assertions are completely false and your inane, uninformed shouting about it won't change simple facts of nature.
Nick 3:24PM (10/25/2009)
It's a good regulation; UVs are very damaging to car interiors, seats, dashboards, and force the use of energy hungry AC systems.
Manufacturing heat deflecting windows isn't difficult or costly at all, as a matter of fact it already exists.
Reply
Level 3:46PM (10/25/2009)
Great IDEA force me to leave the car warming up in the morning longer and use my seat warmers, steering wheel warmers longer because the Sun's bad UV rays are blocked in my car.....So you are fixing one problem in California summer state and creating a problem with the states that have winter!....bright IDEA....
Not to mention if people where really that heated in their cars you think they would of invested 200 bucks in window tint.....
letstakeawalk 4:07PM (10/25/2009)
UV, while damaging in many ways, is not what needs to be blocked. EMR in the Infra-red range is what needs to be blocked to minimize heat build-up.
It should be very simple to block the small range of IR while allowing other beneficial wavelengths (radio, cell phone, GPS) to pass through unaffected. This is not a complicated situation.
why not the LS2LS7? 4:35PM (10/25/2009)
If you park your car outside in winter, it's going to be freezing inside regardless of what the glass and paint are like.
tahdah 5:31PM (10/25/2009)
Actually glass already blocks most UV light. Also thicker windows means your car will get warm faster in the morning because it's better insulated.