By on August 3, 2012

White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer apologized to WaPo and Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer for having “overshot the runway.” Pfeifer had accused Krauthammer of falsely claiming that a bust of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had been removed from the White House and sent back to the British Embassy. In a blog post on the White House Blog (yes, the White House blogs too) Pfeiffer produced a smoking gun: A Churchill bust that was still at the White House.  The trouble was there had been two busts. Now there is only one.  (See, and I would have sworn Bill Clinton took all available busts when he vacated the White House.)

What do busts have to do with cars?

While we are on the topic of apologies, Bob Lutz could join the White House, clear the air, and apologize to Krauthammer. On March 19, the cigar-chomping, journalist-charming Lutz accused his former friend Krauthammer of “deliberately not telling the truth.” Lutz did so in the capitalist tool Forbes. Krauthammer had called the Chevrolet Volt (see, we will get to cars eventually) an example of Obama’s misguided, interventionist energy policy. And he called the car “flammable.” Lutz was incensed and flamed Krauthammer. Octogenarian former Vice Chairman flames sexagenarian Washington insider! What is this world coming to.

According to a recent op-ed post by our dearly departed Op-Ed Niedermeyer in Investor’s Business Daily, the Volt still is an example of Obama’s misguided, interventionist energy policy. 1.2 million EVs by 2015? 120,000 Volts in 2012? GM will be lucky if the Volt will hit its very much down-revised goal of 20,000 this year.  In the first 7 months, the Volt sold 10,666. Despite a presidential spokesman flogging the Volt at every occasion, the Volt is outsold by cars as ignore-worthy as the Mitsubishi Galant. You want proof that this sliver of a segment is misguided? The Leaf sold only 3,543. Mention EVs these days in the industry, and if you don’t happen to talk to a C.A.R.B. official, or a Terry McAuliffe who will sell you a factory in Inner Mongolia because he ran out of Brooklyn Bridges, and the answer will be a cough, or a rapid rolling of the eyes.

If the White House spokesman can apologize for overlooking a double bust and calling Krauthammer a liar, then Lutz can follow the example set at the very top, and apologize for calling Krauthammer a liar. Do it, Bob. America loves contrition.  And it will serve a worthy cause:

While we all are apologizing, TTAC will apologize as well! What did we do? You tell us. Tell us what we should apologize for, and if Lutz apologizes to Krauthammer, we will apologize to whomever for whatever our most heinous sin may be.

You decide – we apologize.

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

55 Comments on “Apolitics: Washington Or Bust...”


  • avatar
    oboylepr

    The Volt is a very rare car and I have been waiting to see one in the flesh since they went on sale. No luck yet. Have not seen a Leaf for that matter either. There must be one at least on Toronto’s east side. The place is littered with Prius with a smattering of other hybrids but no Volts. Folks are just not listening to the President!

    • 0 avatar
      protomech

      I’ve seen a handful of Volts around town – saw one this morning in fact. Huntsville, AL isn’t exactly Big Town, California.

      I’ve only seen one Leaf in person on the road, and that was on a trip up to Washington DC.

    • 0 avatar
      Dr. Claw

      I live near Cleveland. I’ve seen a Leaf and a Volt near me. (I also saw a Volt for sale @ a Spitzer Chevrolet dealer in Summit County). Which is strange; I’m very sure the infrastructure for straight EV vehicles (like the Leaf) just isn’t here. the only place I’ve seen those chargers is at one of the hospital parking lots.

      I just think they’re cost (and convenience) prohibitive at this point.

  • avatar
    Sttocs

    Slow news day, huh?

    From Wikipedia:
    “The Chevrolet Volt concept car debuted at the January 2007 North American International Auto Show, becoming the first-ever series plug-in hybrid concept car shown by a major car manufacturer.”

    Yes, Obama’s retro-active energy policy forced Chevy at gun-point to make the Volt before he even was elected. That time-traveling crypto-muslim Kenyan socialist!

    I don’t like Obama or the Volt and would never own a hybrid — but leave politics to cable news.

    • 0 avatar
      oboylepr

      “That time-traveling crypto-muslim Kenyan socialist!”

      LOL!

    • 0 avatar
      Steve65

      If the people who call Obama a Socialist and/or Marxist ever met a genuine ideological Socialist/Marxist, they’d probably sh!t themselves. They simply have no clue. Obama is a Centrist Pragmatist. (With overtones of Authortarianist, but show me a successful politician from my lifetime who doesn’t share that characteristic.)

      • 0 avatar
        fvfvsix

        As someone who’s had family members as part of Reverend Wright’s church, I can’t tell you how wrong you are. But keep believing the whole centrist thing if you wish.

      • 0 avatar
        Mark MacInnis

        @Steve65:

        There’s nothing “pragmatic” about running the American economy into the ground, and sending millions of American families through the sausage grinder of despair, forclosure, bankruptcy and ultimate dependency on “Uncle Sugar”.

        And there is nothing “centrist” about the destruction of the American middle-class dream through deception, empty rhetoric and toxic ideology.

        But you stay there, safe in your pod, being fed by the media and nurtured by the administration, entertained into inertia by American Idol, the NFL, and Shades of Grey. At least until the money runs out, that is…. And on or about August 16, the national debt will roll over $16,000,000,000,000. How’s that for pragmatism, mate?

        Good Lord, I thought we were the “Best and Brightest”… if Obama has US arguing among ourselves about who he is and what he’s doing to the country, what hope have we? What hope have our children?

      • 0 avatar
        Dr. Claw

        LMMFAO @ Mark.

        Steve65 is absolutely correct in his assessment of Obama; the problem is what “centrist” has come to mean in an American political climate that has had its goal post moved rightward increasingly since Nixon’s rise.

        I hate articles like these, because it brings out the off-topic crazies. At least Sttocs up there can see through the BS.

  • avatar
    BrianL

    Interesting how TTAC is focusing on the negative side of the Volt, when it is now clearly outselling the Leaf and plug in Prius.

    In fact, the Volt has been outselling the plug in Prius in California, which is very surprising.

    Further more, the Volt sold more in the last 7 months that it did last year, likely an inclusion of HOV lanes in California.

    While, I think it is too early to call the Volt a success, I think it is out of failure territory. Also, I am sure there are several cars selling below the “Mitsubishi Galant” line.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      “I think it is out of failure territory.”

      Not really. They’re still building about 1500 more than they sell each month. The other problem is that Ford’s $33k 5 seat plugin is now available. Ford was smart, like Toyota, they based their plug-in on a lower cost hybrid model.

      The CMAX Energi only has 20 miles electric range, but you can select when to go into EV mode. That way if your commute starts out with an efficient highway commute, you use the ICE. Once you hit the city stop and go traffic, you flip it over to EV mode. I think that feature (and the lower price) makes up for the reduced range over the Volt.

      Anyway, I think Volt sales are going to take a hit from Ford.

  • avatar
    jeoff

    Saw my first leaf in Athens, GA, today and seen a couple of Volts. The Volt is easier for me to identify. Other than not having an obvious grill, the leaf looks more like another ecobox.

  • avatar
    jeoff

    The Volt could have been vaporware that disapeared with Pontiac and Saturn when GM busted. The White House had enough influence to fire their CEO. So, yes the White House’s goal to have X amount of electric vehicles by X date could have something to do with the unprofitable Volt’s continued existence.

    • 0 avatar
      BrianL

      And the other unprofitable EVs and plugins are in still in existence because???

      The White House fired the CEO as a requirement of the bailout. If he doesn’t resign, the gov’t doesn’t do the bailout. But there isn’t any gov’t mandate requiring them to keep it going now.

      Also, GM invested a huge amount in the Volt before the bailout ever took place. It wasn’t the gov’t that started this car.

      • 0 avatar
        jeoff

        And the other unprofitable EVs and plugins are in still in existence because???
        1) CA, dictates it must, so most of these are “compliance cars.” or “proof-of-concept cars” (See the electric RAV4 TTAC review today). But, the investment and promises are consistent with these goals–this is not the case with the Volt and the busted GM–the Volt had to be in compliance with the President’s electric car ambitions, not California.

        2) Others, including Nissan, received funds from the US DOE, defraying the costs, and the cars make more sense in their home countries (population dense and gas more expensive Japan).

        The White House fired the CEO as a requirement of the bailout. If he doesn’t resign, the gov’t doesn’t do the bailout. But there isn’t any gov’t mandate requiring them to keep it going now.
        –Yeah, its not like the government owns GM or anything…oh wait, never mind.

        Also, GM invested a huge amount in the Volt before the bailout ever took place. It wasn’t the gov’t that started this car.
        – GM invested an even larger amount in Saturn, Pontiac and Hummer. They were busted, but they kept the Volt and promised crazy sales numbers that made the President’s electric car ambitions seem more plausible.

        –I am not even saying that the Volt is a bad thing. But to think that there GM’s disproportionate investment in it is not largely political, is silly.

      • 0 avatar
        BrianL

        So wait, you think that GM isn’t doing compliance with the Volt while everyone else is doing compliance with their EV’s and plugins? Except that the Volt does help GM with their compliance here, and GM is one of the manufactures required to do it for CA and other states that have adopted CARB.

        http://gm-volt.com/2012/05/31/california-clean-air-mandates-creating-new-sub-market/

        So, GM should kill it when it actually needs to keep it around? I knew the answer to the question I was asking. I am not sure why you think it is the White House keeping it alive.

        GM wasn’t eligible for the loans that Nissan received. Then when they were, the DOE wasn’t interested in paying them out. The loans are for tooling. Ford received some of these as well. But, EVs are ok at being city cars, they still have several limitations that make them a non starter. Still, this doesn’t explain how the White House is keeping the Volt alive.

        The White House didn’t own GM at the time, but had loaned them some money. At that point, the White House made it a requirement that the CEO leave to receive further help. I don’t deny that. But, the gov’t didn’t take ownership till after he was gone during bankruptcy. Your comment about, the gov’t owning GM doesn’t have a thing to contradict what I said the first time, or this time. But, maybe some repetition will help.

        The Saturn project had gone badly astray. Pontiac, Saturn, and Chevy were essentially selling the same products and GM didn’t have the advertising budget to keep up with all of them. Getting rid of those brands actually made sense. There is less product overlap. It is easier to differentiate Chevy and Buick than Chevy and Pontiac and Saturn. But, you missed my point about this anyway. GM’s investment in the vehicle happened before the bailout. GM was planning on releasing this car BEFORE bankruptcy. It wasn’t the gov’t kept the company alive, which kept this car alive.

        And if someone has to explain why Hummer was let go…

        The presidents sales numbers of didn’t make sense even with forcasted Volt sales numbers. Just look at them.

        But finally, and you really have to understand this. The Volt was under development years before the bailout/bankruptcy occurred. To call GM’s investment in it political is ignorant of the facts. The vehicle HAS been very much politicized since its release and during the bailout.

      • 0 avatar

        +1

        Well said BrianL, your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter…

    • 0 avatar
      jeoff

      Brian L,

      “So wait, you think that GM isn’t doing compliance with the Volt while everyone else is doing compliance with their EV’s and plugins? Except that the Volt does help GM with their compliance here, and GM is one of the manufactures required to do it for CA and other states that have adopted CARB.”
      –Yes, there is a difference between being obligated to converting a handful of cars from existing platforms for sale in CA, and essentially developing a new animal and marketing and selling it in 50 states, especially when your company has no money (2008). The Volt had a higher “compliance” obligation, and that “compliance obligation” was to the White House. Do you honestly think that GM could have said “In light of the current (2008-9) economic situation, we have determined that producing a high volume electric is not viable at the current time. Instead we will produce a low voume electric for sale in CA” when the president is talking up 1.2 million electrics in 2015?

      “http://gm-volt.com/2012/05/31/california-clean-air-mandates-creating-new-sub-market/

      So, GM should kill it when it actually needs to keep it around? I knew the answer to the question I was asking. I am not sure why you think it is the White House keeping it alive.”
      –GM needed to sell SOMETHING in CA. Throw a couple of bateries on a Saturn VUE. Or downsize the scale/time-frame of the Volt project.

      “GM wasn’t eligible for the loans that Nissan received. Then when they were, the DOE wasn’t interested in paying them out. The loans are for tooling. Ford received some of these as well. But, EVs are ok at being city cars, they still have several limitations that make them a non starter. Still, this doesn’t explain how the White House is keeping the Volt alive.”
      1) Krauthammer would argue that this an example of “Obama’s misguided, interventionist energy policy.”
      2) This was just an example of how others defrayed the cost of a lower cost option.
      3) The government still has quite a bit of leverage with GM. It owns its stock, and can determine the whens and hows on how it is sold. It is in the current administration’s interest for the Volt to be continued to be sold at least through the next election, and there is no way it won’t be.

      “The White House didn’t own GM at the time, but had loaned them some money. At that point, the White House made it a requirement that the CEO leave to receive further help. I don’t deny that. But, the gov’t didn’t take ownership till after he was gone during bankruptcy. Your comment about, the gov’t owning GM doesn’t have a thing to contradict what I said the first time, or this time. But, maybe some repetition will help.

      The Saturn project had gone badly astray. Pontiac, Saturn, and Chevy were essentially selling the same products and GM didn’t have the advertising budget to keep up with all of them. Getting rid of those brands actually made sense. There is less product overlap. It is easier to differentiate Chevy and Buick than Chevy and Pontiac and Saturn. But, you missed my point about this anyway. GM’s investment in the vehicle happened before the bailout. GM was planning on releasing this car BEFORE bankruptcy. It wasn’t the gov’t kept the company alive, which kept this car alive.

      And if someone has to explain why Hummer was let go…

      The presidents sales numbers of didn’t make sense even with forcasted Volt sales numbers. Just look at them.

      But finally, and you really have to understand this. The Volt was under development years before the bailout/bankruptcy occurred. To call GM’s investment in it political is ignorant of the facts. The vehicle HAS been very much politicized since its release and during the bailout.”
      —I understand that GM was playing up the Volt prior to the bailout. But, car companies play up a lot of things the die or are downscaled. If GM were in the same situation in 1998 as it was in 2008 the EV1 would not have been canned. It’s just the way the world works. (may have been better off if they hadn’t)

      Serious question: What have you heard recently about the next generation Volt?

  • avatar
    cfclark

    We need to amend the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to run for national office. Not to render moot any controversy about Obama birth certificates, but so Lutz can run.

    Lutz/Kissinger ’16 FTW!

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    Politics aside, Krauthammer has a staff to check his facts. The people who challenge him generally have sycophantic ego boosters instead.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “Krauthammer has a staff to check his facts.”

      In that case, he should have known that the Volt was under development long before Obama was president.

      • 0 avatar

        This is what Krauthammer said:

        “another federally dictated confection, the flammable Chevy Volt.”

        The problem is that even when checking facts, a lot of the published information is inaccurate. I doubt there are many people that have gotten deep enough into the weeds to know that the original work dates to 2006, a spinoff of the Two Mode Hybrid team. The Volt was introduced as a concept in early 2007 and the patent that was applied for that year that protects the Voltec drivetrain was finally granted in 2010.

        The question is, would GM have continued to develop the Volt through the bankruptcy were it not for the encouragement of Rattner’s team, presumably in line with Mr. Obama’s wishes?

        GM killed a new brand unique V8 for Cadillac. They killed off the Pontiac, Hummer, and Saturn brands. They didn’t kill off the Volt project. Now I don’t think that anyone sane in Detroit (or Toyota City) thinks that EVs will be anything more than a small fraction of the fleet for the foreseeable future. Lutz saw the Volt as a combination technical and public relations home run, something to take away Toyota’s luster, not a product that was going to sell hundreds of thousands of units any time soon. In Stephen Rattner’s book Overhaul he points out at least a couple of times that there was no way the Volt would have any kind of positive impact on GM’s bottom line for years. It’s interesting that while he discusses the reasons for killing Pontiac, Saturn and the Hummer, he doesn’t say why the Volt program survived. He does say that president Obama made it clear that he favored putting government money into alternative energy. As an aside, this was way before Solydra went belly up but Rattner does warn that much of that “investment” was done with very lax oversight.

        Krauthammer’s use of the word “flammable” was inaccurate, but I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to think that at the very least the Volt program survived because people at GM were trying to curry favor with the Obama administration. Yes, the company had made it a high profile project, but they’ve walked away from high profile projects (like the GM Rotary & the deal with Fiat) before.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        And yet, it’s still an excellent example of the President’s policies. There are plenty of things dating back hundreds of years that are excellent examples of progressive foolishness. This is why critics keep digging up Hayek and others to dismiss the nonsense.

        Personally, I doubt the volt would ever have been put into production if it weren’t for state influence. It doesn’t compare well to the Prius, and Lutz and company should have realized they missed the mark.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “Personally, I doubt the volt would ever have been put into production if it weren’t for state influence.”

        Of course. No reason to allow facts to get in the way of a good argument.

        “I doubt there are many people that have gotten deep enough into the weeds to know that the original work dates to 2006″

        Bloody hell, even Wikipedia managed to figure it out.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    tl;dr

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    Well, strictly speaking, Bertel is wrong that the Volt is the product of the Obama administration, since its genesis predates his election.

    But, Bertel’s statement has a great deal of truthiness to it, and here’s why. Imagine a GM bankruptcy that is market-focused rather than politics-focused (i.e. not focused on keeping the union members happy at the expense of secured creditors and keeping the rich, liberal left happy).

    It’s hard to imagine that a top-to-bottom review of the company’s business (the same review that killed Saturn and Pontiac, and sold or killed Saab and Hummer) wouldn’t have taken a look at the Volt project and said: “A Prius at 180% of the Prius’ price? This looks like a marketplace fail, guys. Kill it.”

    We know, of course, that didn’t happen. So, in that sense, this administration does own the Volt.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “It’s hard to imagine that a top-to-bottom review of the company’s business (the same review that killed Saturn and Pontiac, and sold or killed Saab and Hummer) wouldn’t have taken a look at the Volt project and said: “A Prius at 180% of the Prius’ price?”

      The Old GM paid for the development of the Volt. The New GM effectively got it for free. Why wouldn’t they take it?

    • 0 avatar
      philadlj

      “the most glaring interference centers on Akerson’s handling of the Chevrolet Volt, a car that previous executives admit GM designed to shift public perceptions of the company; they never intended it for mass market.”

      Obama wanted the Volt to be a mass market car – the next Prius – when it was originally intended to be a halo car.

      Consumers had other ideas.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “Obama wanted the Volt to be a mass market car – the next Prius – when it was originally intended to be a halo car.”

        That doesn’t seem likely.

        I doubt that it’s a coincidence that Lutz wanted to develop the Volt after Prius sales in the US broke 100,000 units per year.

        The Volt is GM’s attempt to play catch up with the Prius. At that point, TMC had announced that a Prius plug-in was under development, which raised the bar accordingly. Toyota proved that there was a market, and GM decided that it wanted a piece of it.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        “Toyota proved that there was a market, and GM decided that it wanted a piece of it.”

        It’s more likely that GM was trying to poison the well; hoping to dissuade people from buying Priuses in favour of a Volt that was better in every way, and just around the corner.

      • 0 avatar
        redmondjp

        I’m glad that you brought this up – the Volt was indeed never intended for mass production, much like the hydrogen-powered prototypes that carmakers periodically parade around with the claim that the technology is 10 years away.

        It was a stammering Rick Waggoner (IIRC) at the 2007 Detroit Auto Show, who clearly telegraphed this, by his response to the question of when the car would be available.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        “the Volt was indeed never intended for mass production”

        Bob Lutz must have missed that memo. From March 2008: “GM is focusing on its plug-in hybrid Volt, and despite some development snags the company has set the goal of selling 100,000 units by 2012.”

        http://wot.motortrend.com/lutz-predicts-a-third-of-gms-sales-will-be-hybrids-by-2015-250.html

        Does 100,000 units per year sound like a low volume halo car to you?

  • avatar
    ExPatBrit

    Seeing a lot more Volts here in the Pacific NW.

    Actually saw one yesterday that looked like it was probably owned by yer typical don’t care much Chevy owner. Badly needed a wash and crap all over the inside.

    Talked to the guy, 30K miles on it. No problems at all so far.

  • avatar
    Advance_92

    Anyone want to guess how Mitt Romney’s comments about England’s Olympic preparations relate to sales expectations for the Dodge Dart while we’re at it?

    Whatever it is I’m sure Nixon had a tape on it!

  • avatar
    Beerboy12

    TTAC should apologize for blatant troll baiting… Ah! maybe not ;-)

  • avatar

    FWIW, at the Concours of America, I was talking to a guy who owns one of the handful of 1968 SD396 Beaumonts that still exist. That’s the Canadian quasi Pontiac version of the SS Chevelle. He volunteered the information that his daily driver is a Volt and that it is the best car he’s ever owned. The Volt was exceptionally well developed and I haven’t spoken to an owner that isn’t thrilled with the car.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve65

      “The Volt was exceptionally well developed and I haven’t spoken to an owner that isn’t thrilled with the car.”

      You don’t see the inherent self-selection bias there?

      When I sat in a Volt at the car show, I mentioned to the GM shill there that screen-printing the switchgear labels on a smooth sheet of plastic seemed like bad design, since once they inevitably wear away it’ll be impossible to know which switch does what. His response? “By then you’ll have memorized them”.

      And that doesn’t even address the even worse issue – the complete lack of tactile feedback.

  • avatar
    fishiftstick

    The first cars could go practically nowhere for lack of paved roads. They were slow, unreliable, and extremely expensive. If you wanted practical transportation, you bought a horse. A car was a rich nerd’s toy. But because early adopters bought those ridiculous contraptions, we got the cars we have today. The point is, new technology always sucks at the start.

    Today, there’s this thing called “global warming,” and another one called “running out of oil.” Some call that part of the “time-travelling Kenyan crypto-Muslim socialist agenda.” Others call it reality. And for them, the point of the Volt isn’t profit, but moving technology forward so we can keep driving.

    I wouldn’t buy a Volt today. I’m not a rich nerd. But in 20 years, my car will probably use a lot of the same technology.

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      +1, fish, that saved me some keystrokes…

    • 0 avatar
      Mark MacInnis

      @fishiftstick:

      “Today, there’s this thing called “global warming,” and another one called “running out of oil.””

      Time to get your news on, mate. Many scientists are pendulum-swinging back to reality on the whole global warming thing as the true, rational, non-hyped science can NOT support the whole theory. As to running out of oil, well, perhaps you could direct your attention to our great state of North Dakota. So, it would be helpful if you wouldn’t state as FACT what is, at best, a series of controversial opinions.

      Liberals who have hi-jacked this country’s energy policy and who just believe the blather and talking points they hear on MSNBC and CNN just make me want to PUKE!

      And to think, I used to be so close-minded….

      • 0 avatar
        Dr. Claw

        “used to be so close[d]-minded”?

        if you were supposedly not, you would know that it isn’t the “liberals” who have hi-jacked this country’s energy policy. not to mention, now even a known global warming skeptic, whose study was funded by those who thought they were going to PAY him to feed their whole “everything the scientists and the LIBERALS say is a lie” crackpot theory.

        most scientists agreed over 20 years ago that humans are the primary contributor to global warming and climate change. That is scientific fact, not controversial, politically partisan opinion.

        It is only made controversial because people paid by corporations that profit over (honestly) antiquated energy production methods would cease to profit should the paradigm change at all. Hence, the people who really have “hijacked” the energy policy in the United States.

        We now live in an age where “if all else fails, blame the liberal boogeymen”. environmental concerns used to be non-partisan. now the veil is off, and like everything else that affects, us, they are made political.

        and to be honest, considering what it takes to maintain EV propulsion, we’re not exactly out of the outhouse and into the “greenhouse”.

        (for the record, I don’t watch MSNBC much nowadays, and CNN has become quite the joke since they try so hard not to appear “partisan” they end up distorting the facts nowadays. Let me guess, you watch “fair and balanced” programming?)

      • 0 avatar

        “most scientists agreed over 20 years ago that humans are the primary contributor to global warming and climate change. That is scientific fact, not controversial, politically partisan opinion.”

        So how do “most scientists” explain how the earth came out of the last ice age? and the one before that, and the one before that? Humans had nothing to do with them.

  • avatar
    Darth Lefty

    I’m not sure if we have an extra-successful dealership, or if it’s the local Intel plant, or if Nissan is flogging them to the state pols, but Leafs are thick on the ground around here in the eastern burbs of Sacramento.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    The pictures to go with this article are so epic my humidor spontaneously burst into flames.

  • avatar
    Mike Kelley

    Cars like the Leaf and Volt are just politically correct toys for people with more money than brains. How many working-class folks will pay $41,000 for a Volt when they can pay $16,000 and get a Mazda3 that performs better? The Japs use these eco-themed, clown cars as cover for the profitable gas-guzzlers they sell in large numbers to pay the bills (think Toyota Prius versus Toyota Land Rover or Sequoa).


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States