This second part of a three-part series highlights Overdrive readers’ voices raised over the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to do away with the extended warranty requirements the 2027 NOx rule initially put on truck makers.
EPA’s original 2027 NOx rule would have required OEMs to extend the warranty periods for model year 2027 engines and beyond from the current 100,000 miles to 450,000 miles. In its proposed changes, however, EPA called for leaving the warranty periods where they are currently. OEMs claimed those requirements would pass upwards of $20,000 in added cost to truck buyers.
Despite the big cost, 40% of Overdrive readers in recent polling were not pleased with EPA’s proposal to do away with the warranty extensions, and many were vocal about in comments. It’s a sharp contrast to larger-fleet perspective, which has tracked largely in favor of rolling back warranties on basis of purchase cost.
Truck makers should want to back up their products
“A good warranty says a company believes in its product. A longer warranty says it really means it. That’s the kind of confidence buyers are looking for. What’s up with these folks? Sounds like they need a nudge!” —One among many survey respondents that follow, in favor of longer required warranty periods
“A truck is supposed to be dependable. If the manufacturer believes that, offering a longer warranty shouldn’t be a problem. Confidence goes both ways. Or if it doesn’t, maybe a bit of consumer protection needs to step in?”
“Better warranties would push manufacturers to build trucks that last longer. If they’re paying for repairs, they’ll have every reason to improve the design. Everyone comes out ahead.”
“Longer warranty obligations motivate manufacturers to spend additional engineering time validating software updates, sensors, and emissions components before releasing them into the marketplace. We know that the ‘leave it to them’ option got us!!!”
[Related: OOIDA wary of new EPA proposal as fleets, OEM applaud]
Warranty protections needed for small-business truckers
“As the owner of a regional trucking fleet, I support maintaining longer EPA emissions warranty requirements. Modern emissions systems are expensive, and failures often occur after the manufacturer’s basic warranty expires. Extended EPA warranty requirements provide certainty for fleet budgeting and help ensure emissions systems remain functional throughout their intended service life.”
“Buying a truck is one of the biggest investments a small trucking business makes. It makes sense to have warranty coverage that matches that investment. Anything less falls short.”
“A truck isn’t a disposable appliance. It’s someone’s livelihood. Weakening warranty protections tells working Americans they’re on their own after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
“Commercial trucks are built for years of service, not short-term use. Warranty policies should recognize the long service life of these vehicles and support durable environmental performance over time.”
“Downtime costs money every single day. Extended warranty coverage keeps trucks working instead of sitting in the shop while businesses struggle with repair costs.”
“From a maintenance perspective, longer warranty periods encourage preventive repairs and timely replacement of failing emissions components. That keeps vehicles operating cleaner and reduces deferred maintenance.”
“Commercial trucks often change owners several times during their service lives. Longer warranty protection helps preserve confidence in the used truck market by reducing uncertainty about emissions equipment.”
“When warranty availability shrinks, operating costs become less predictable. Large fleets can absorb that volatility. Smaller carriers generally can’t.”
“I firmly believe that keeping the OEM extended warranty requirements in place while extending the timeline for them to develop better emission systems would be the best course of action. It would put the burden on the manufacturers to do the research and development for better systems AND extend the timeline for doing so.”
If you missed the first part of this series featuring reader voices on EPA’s proposed changes to the 2027 NOx regs, find it here. The next part in the series, with readers calling for a balance between environmental protections and equipment costs, can be read here.
