Sun-loving off-roaders in the state of California can breathe a collective sigh of relief today as the California Air Resources Board has announced that soft-top versions of the Jeep Wrangler will be exempted from its proposed “Cool Car” regulations.
Aimed at reducing emissions tied to air conditioning use, CARB introduced a so-called “Cool Car” measure earlier this month that would require vehicles to use an advanced glass glazing system that would block the sun’s energy by up to 60 percent. However, since the Jeep Wrangler soft-top uses flexible side windows not suited to the glazing treatment, the cool car regulations would have forced Chrysler to pull the Wrangler soft-top from the California market.
After fielding complaints from Chrysler – and likely thousands of disgruntled Jeep Wrangler owners – CARB has decided to exclude vehicles with flexible side windows from the cool car rules. “The Cool Cars regulation only applies to rigid windows and will not affect the flexible glazing on vehicles such as the Jeep Wrangler,” CARB said in a statement on Friday.
“If the plastic windows are rigid, they must comply with the same standards as glass windows, beginning with the 2012 model year.”
Per the tentative terms of the cool car regulations – the final version of the law isn’t expected until later this month – vehicles sold in California will be required to block 45 percent of the sun’s energy by 2014 with a ramp-up to 60 percent by 2016. The 2016 requirements will tack on $250 to the price of a vehicle, but CARB says owners will be able to recoup that cost in fuel savings within 5 to 12 years.
10/23, 5:13 PM
posted by:
NRG
Now why didn’t CARB not think of this with Wrangler originally? Did they really think Wrangler owners would not complain, or was it that they just wern’t thinking? Probably the latter of the two, obviously.
10/23, 5:41 PM
posted by:
wideopenthrottle
They actually got something right…..? Now I’m worried.
10/23, 5:57 PM
posted by:
idrinorbarsaku
shouldn’t fuel efficiency be more important than these damn windows? California is SO fncked up!
10/23, 6:04 PM
posted by:
Bosley
While I agree with you all, my first reaction was: How much did that cost Jeep? Probably an arm & a leg to guarantee sales to one of the most populated states……
10/23, 6:30 PM
posted by:
reedfast
So the wrangler is no longer cool?
10/23, 7:00 PM
posted by:
fubar
5-12 years to recoup the cost, that’s great. That’s like anywhere from $20-$50 saved a year. That’s terrific
10/23, 7:01 PM
posted by:
fubar
Better make sure I buy something I plan on keeping that long…..carb is stupid
10/23, 8:34 PM
posted by:
A4
thank godddd
10/23, 8:49 PM
posted by:
psiclone
You non-California guys have no idea the environmental sh!t we have to deal with here. So, because CARB employees and its proponents want to save $20 to $50 per year (oh, and the planet – - all 197 million or so square miles of its surface) by glazing their car windows that means everybody else buying a new car in the state HAS to as well. I’m sure people up north are going to benefit greatly from this idea. Damn the extremists! This is such nonsense and they push their ideological viewpoints on us through legislation. This is not the time for increased government imposition in our lives!
10/23, 10:34 PM
posted by:
85ZingoGTR
Must suck to live in california. Yet their cities like LA has a nice big smog cloud above it like the Big Apple.
10/23, 11:25 PM
posted by:
armstealer
I, for one, am very happy to spend an extra $250 for special windows. I mean, FINALLY there is a way to block the sun from getting through glass.
(I edited out a political rant here, haha)
What interests me is that they say things like cell phones and toll booth transponders may not work through it.. …so what will we be able hide under it?
10/24, 8:31 AM
posted by:
alsvw
california regulators have to much time on their hands.
10/24, 9:13 AM
posted by:
jayjc08
Did LLN forget to mention all the other things that this law will affect? Did they mention what the CARB board thinks of this measurement?
“…these measures were included in the list of discrete early actions approved by the board…
You’ll also be paying more at the pump as well. This is just one of nine measures that were proposed by the board, five of them already approved, that will make everyday driving more expensive. Such as mandating lower carbon fuels, mandating that you have a professional change your automotive refrigerant…
10/24, 11:15 AM
posted by:
johngalt
They say that the smog is the reason L.A. has such beautiful sunsets…
10/24, 5:54 PM
posted by:
Sgt Beavis
Killing two birds with one stone.
The glazing will keep your car cooler.
AND
Your cell phone won’t work. No more distractions…
Rejoice for Nannyland is in full effect..
10/24, 6:57 PM
posted by:
johnnycanuck
armstealer… why would you choose to edit out a political rant on this site of all places?
10/24, 8:33 PM
posted by:
leftwingagenda
shhhh, johnny, don’t spoil the peace and quiet…hey, wait, that’s part of your anarchist canadian agenda, isn’t it…damnit! i’ve been had!
10/24, 8:43 PM
posted by:
johnnycanuck
“Be vewy, vewy qwiet. I’m hunting wabbits.”
10/25, 8:13 PM
posted by:
anyclearer
one big problem with americans, you all bitch so much. This is going to keep your car cooler, and help reduce how much youll need to crank the ac, saving you gas……..and everyone else from smog and health related problems. Suck it and stop being babies.
10/26, 12:42 PM
posted by:
RaineMan
Amazing… they can’t decide on a budget but they have plenty of time to keep screwing over the auto manufacturers.
Can the other 49 states vote California out of the union PLEASE?
10/26, 2:04 PM
posted by:
beatusmongous
Why does saving gas always have to cost more money?
11/06, 10:21 PM
posted by:
psiclone
To clarify, this isn’t about whether you CAN have your windows treated to make the car more efficient. It’s about whether it should be MANDATED on you at an involuntary cost that will take five years to recoup. My point is just that people should be allowed to decide if this is necessary for their vehicle, taking into account their individual conditions. And, don’t use the government to mandate an ideological viewpoint. As I said previously, some people up north will have very little if any benefit from this but will be required by the government to pay for it. In southern California I choose to tint my windows (illegally up front) because of the hot summers. How about we start by removing some of the already-existing government imposition (the ban on front window tinting) and let people choose for themselves if they want it or not.