By on August 10, 2012

Bloomberg is reporting that House Republicans, led by California Congressman Darrell Issa, are set to produce a report that heavily criticizes CAFE as a politicized move designed to curry favor with bailed out auto makers and environmental groups.

Issa called CAFE

“a raw political process designed to appease environmental extremists…The impact of this process will not be immediate but will be felt by manufacturers forced to make, dealers forced to sell, and consumers forced to purchase far different, more expensive and less safe vehicles,”

Singled out in particular by Issa were the influence exerted by California (which can write its own rules if it is unsatisfied with the federal government’s own rules) and environmental groups. The Detroit News reports that Toyota, along with other foreign automakers, were unhappy with the deal, and they perceived favoritism towards the home team.

Automotive News, quoting the paper, recounts how Toyota Motor Sales U.S. head  Jim Lentz told Ron Bloom, then the White House chief negotiator, how Toyota felt.

“Japan is angry. Feel like they have been screwed,” according to handwritten notes from Toyota, the News reported today. The paper said Toyota wanted credits for hybrid vehicles — similar to credits that were extended to natural gas, flex-fuel and electric vehicles — and wanted more flexibility to use car credits for meeting truck standards.”

Another sticking point for Toyota was the slippery definition of what exactly constitutes a truck. The Big Three had been using this as a way to shift vehicles, like the Chrysler PT Cruiser, into the “truck” column to help bring down their fuel economy averages on the truck side.

Toyota also argued that the definition of a full-sized pickup truck — a stronghold of Detroit automakers for years — had been written to exclude the Toyota Tundra. Lentz said the deal was an “old Detroit tactic. It may hurt me, but it hurts my competitors more,” Toyota’s notes said, the News reported. But the White House was eager for Toyota to support the deal. “It looks bad for me and bad for you if Toyota is not there,” Bloom told Lentz at one point during the process, the News reported.

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

55 Comments on “California Congressman Alleges CAFE Benefits Bailout Recipients...”


  • avatar
    Pch101

    CAFE is a half measure that is what the US government uses as a substitute for a higher gas tax. Mr. Issa must know that, so either he wants to jack up the gas tax or else he’s being more than a bit disingenuous.

    “The Detroit News reports that Toyota, along with other foreign automakers, were unhappy with the deal, and they perceived favoritism towards the home team.”

    That’s a bit bogus as well. The Asian companies don’t have a problem complying with CAFE because they built their market share by selling smaller cars, while the Germans sell cars at prices high enough to pay for the fines.

    Detroit gets the loopholes because they’re the ones who need them. CAFE is a political mechanism, not a useful tool for reducing fuel consumption. Nobody is really serious about trying to make it work.

  • avatar
    210delray

    If you ask me, Issa is a loose cannon. Have you ever read up on his background? Pot, meet kettle.

    You’re also correct pch101 in that raising gas taxes would be the more direct way to address the issue. But raising taxes in the current political climate is verboten.

    • 0 avatar
      dejal1

      “But raising taxes in the current political climate is verboten.”

      Current?

      CAFE has been around since 1975. I don’t believe anyone has ever tried in the last 27 years. The people with Ds after their name had a lock on laws for 2 years. They also could have slammed dunked it with Clinton.

      I personally have no issue with a higher gas tax. At the very least it should be percentage of the price.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        The gas tax was increased from 9 cents per gallon to 14.1 cents in 1990. It was increased again to a range of 18.3-18.4 cents in 1993. So it basically hasn’t been increased in 19 years.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        The gasoline tax is one of many. The federal tax is 18.3 cents in California, which adds its own 18 cents tax, but there are excise and sales taxes that add up to 69 cents total there. State taxes vary, but most excise taxes go into various special funds as part of labrynthine state budgets. Untangling those measures at the state level is a political minefield.

        Those taxes haven’t gone up as much as inflation has eroded their purchasing power. That’s why we have deteriorating roads and bridges. Motorists won’t like the bill required to rebuild America’s roads and bridges. In 1972, taxes were half the retail price. Today it’s 15%-25%. An inflation-adjusted, percent-of-the-price unitary fuel tax would produce $5.50-$6.00 per gallon prices at the pump.

    • 0 avatar
      TomHend

      If you ask me Obama is a loose cannon. Have you ever read up on his background? Pot meet kettle.

  • avatar
    loj

    ‘“a raw political process designed to appease environmental extremists…” Thank you Mr. Issa for your completely objective, non-partisan take on the issue.

  • avatar
    fatalexception04

    Ah gotta love republican theories….
    No global warming, unsafe cars cause of CAFE. How ridiculous. Next they’ll be telling me that the rich pay their fair share in taxes and that I’m un-American for even suggesting to raise them

    There’s nothing wrong with pushing for better efficiency. In the end we the consumer benefits by paying less for such a volatile source of energy. And news flash for the politicos….young ppl want to own cars with high fuel efficiency. They actually do care about that stuff

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      I couldn’t agree more. CAFE certainly has flaws, but until recently, the automakers were constantly on the ragged edge of compliance. Every bit of efficiency was offset by bulk and power. I can only imagine how bad it would have been without this minimum floor. The gas tax, by the way, has its own built in flaw as that even those who buy efficient get penalized. I’d rather see a registration surcharge or credit based on mileage. You would really see manufactures clamoring for that advantage to advertise…

  • avatar
    icemilkcoffee

    The SUV/truck dispute has been around forever. Since well before the bailout. It’s not anything new.
    And it’s not like Toyota doesn’t have enough SUV’s in their line-up.

  • avatar
    01 ZX3

    Why does the government need to get involved at all? Let the market decide what is built.

    • 0 avatar
      Sundowner

      The market decides based on cost metrics. one of those metrics is fuel price. fuel price can very easily and neatly be changed with a suitable tax increase. The reason it works so well is that it’s a supply side control. The government changes the availability of fuel, and consumers will demand that market shift to more efficient cars. CAFE by it’s very purpose exists to alter the demand side of the equation, which never works, becuase you can’t change demand. People will want whatever they can afford, and the market will find a way to make that happen every time.

      However, thanks to the political climate in this country, raising a tax is like grinding up puppies on national TV in front of a live audience of children, except that voters might forgive your for the puppies.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Agreed. Government cannot control what the market will do, and the market will win every time. This is a well documented phenomenon.

      With regard to taxes some have suggested, taxes are never the answer. Handing dot gov more than they already steal from the public is tantamount to giving your debit card to a crack head. Government will either have to shrink or eventually collapse, its that simple. California’s coming chaos will be the first example of this because I doubt the will is there to change.

      The fact is our society is built on oil, and oil will drive society for at least the next hundred years, peak oil or not. EV’s are cute but mainstream use is a pipe dream, the hybrid is the the most realistic ‘green’ product I have seen, but even they have their drawbacks.

      Eliminating the vestige of power CARB and environmental fanatics over the rest of the nation is the only logical solution. End CAFE, let the automakers do as they wish. I doubt the major players would be foolish enough to throw fuel economy out the window with their future offerings. If an automobile company wants to go the ‘save the Earth’ route they may be quite profitable or they may not, but in no way should such a product be forced on the market.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        28 cars: What your propose is what we used to have. The Wild West of industrialists…. To quote Spock (more or less to Commodore Decker: “What you ended up with was a wrecked ship and a dead crew”….Sorry but a mixed approach between market forces and balanced regulation is what is needed. History has proven that again and again.

      • 0 avatar
        billfrombuckhead

        All actual markets are contrived, they don’t work like physics. Paid any attention to the stock market or bond market lately?

        JapaIncn complaining about other nations regulations is really rich.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        I actually was just watching a BBC documentary called ‘The Mayfair Set’ on youtube which chronicles the rise and fall of four men and British industry from the mid sixties to the mind ninetys. The second part more or less concludes when the old line of industrialists/colonialists and the British gov’t went up against the market and a man name Tiny Rowland, the old guard lost everything and the British economy was plunged into chaos between 1970 and 1977 as a result. Market forces are more powerful than gov’t regs/demands and to go against the market is business suicide.

        I would propose and end to CAFE standards entirely and to restrict the authority of green radicals in determining nationwide fuel economy/emissions standards.

    • 0 avatar
      icemilkcoffee

      Every developed nation has some sort of fuel economy standard. You can use your own imagination as to why this is needed.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        Cant see it being to crazy, people still have to put a roof over their heads and food on the table and gas isn’t going back to .99 a gallon any time soon with world demand being what it is (the US has or had a glut of fuel and its been more profitable for companies to sell it abroad rather than take a beating in the US by discounting gas due to lesser demand).

  • avatar
    MrGreenMan

    It’d be nice to hear a clear-speaking politician argue:

    1) There is a constitutional writ to make roads, including esp. postal roads, so the federal government has some ability to make roads for interstate commerce
    2) The costs of said roads can and thus should be borne by the users of those; for lack of anything closer to all-toll, and because, as a rule, the federal government shouldn’t tag and track everything — even if it can — since it violates individual privacy, make it a federal fuel tax per gallon, perhaps with a kicker on diesel since, despite the Jetta TDI, most diesel goes to trucking, which causes more wear than the average vehicle.
    3) Dedicate those taxes to the mandated use only of building and repairing roads, so that they do not go into the great general fund of political spoils. Adjust the tax annually to match real road repair and construction expenditures.

    In this way, you can choose your quirky, alternative Toyota truck (that the market has, in general, not liked), with whatever powertrain Toyota wants in there that it thinks can steal Ford/GM/Ram customers, or you can choose your can’t-get-enough Prius/PriusC/PriusV and sell green at a premium. Let the customer decide on his vehicle and his consumption.

    Half of this country’s fiscal problems stemmed from eliminating the principle of having specific taxes and excises go to specific, agreed uses, and instead inventing a general fund to be handed out to warfare or welfare interests. It would make it far easier to say — I love a 455, and I’m going to drive it, and I’m going to pay for the 4 gallons/mile.

    • 0 avatar
      halkyardo

      Or, for Diesel, do what the New Zealand government does. Regular fuel is sold with road tax included in the price. Diesel is sold without road tax, which the vehicle owner is responsible for pre-paying in units of 1000km. Road tax is divided into categories depending on the weight and purpose of the vehicle, and off-road use can be claimed as a refund.

      Of course,

    • 0 avatar
      Dr. Claw

      Not a bad idea at all…

  • avatar
    Crosley

    Or how about highlighting how the taxpayer bailout has benefited bailout recipients? Why distract at all from the real issue?

    But CAFE has been a miserable failure that has distorted the market. When you look at the before and after, the average vehicle mpg is pretty close to where it was in the 70′s before CAFE came about because it pushed many Americans from cars into gas guzzling SUVs.

    How many “soccer moms” weren’t driving around in Suburbans before CAFE?

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      I’m no fan of CAFE, but it’s false to say that average vehicle mpg is pretty close to where it was in the 70s. Couldn’t find a chart showing just how bad fuel efficiency was in the 70s, but here is one starting in 1980.

      http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html

      The Ford Pinto had highway fuel economy ratings in the 20s. There are many relatively large, heavy CUVs that can match the Pinto on fuel economy. The supersized Camry is amazingly fuel efficient for its interior space and the new Altima is even better.

      I’ve come to the conclusion that the best thing the federal government can do is to do nothing and let the price spikes scare consumers into more fuel efficient cars. I do like how CAFE has caused manufacturers to add more gear ratios. I strongly dislike how CAFE has caused manufacturers to game the test, programming shift points and accelerator pedal responses for good test results at the expense of drivability. Absolutely hate the lack of road feel in cars with electric power steering applied at the steering column between the steering wheel and steering rack.

      • 0 avatar
        Crosley

        The explosion of SUVs as a vehicle of choice brings the average down quite a bit, and you just sort of proved my point. You’re comparing a 30 year old car with a carburetor and no overdrive to a modern SUV, and the mpg is fairly close. If you have millions of new SUVs on the roads instead of much lighter cars, you’ve likely made things much worse.

        My point is not that vehicle fuel economy hasn’t improved over the last 30 years, of course technology is going to improve with more gears, fuel injection, lighter materials, etc. It’s that the distortions the law caused may have actually pushed consumers into making “worse” choices with respect to fuel economy.

    • 0 avatar
      icemilkcoffee

      Actually the fleet average before the advent of CAFE was around 13mpg. Now it’s something like 25 or 26mpg. Don’t forget- light trucks have their own CAFE standard to meet also. The Hummer/Excursion type vehicles which weigh over 8500lb are indeed exempt from CAFE standards, but the sales volume of these cars is pretty tiny.

      Also- don’t forget the current crop of 40mpg cars on these shores. You can thank the EPA for that.

      • 0 avatar
        Crosley

        The first year CAFE went into effect, a manufacturers’ car fleet was required to get 18mpg. That’s still slightly better than many full size SUVs on the road today 30 years later.

  • avatar
    Corco

    Even if that were true, it’s not like the Japanese don’t have any protectionist policies in their own country.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    WHAT?!?!

    A corrupt government curries favors from major corporations and special interest groups, and passes laws that kissses up to their corporate and special interest campaign money while ignoring the needs of the citizenry?

    SHOCKED I tell you! Shocked I am!!!

    • 0 avatar
      jimmyy

      Before I worked on Wall Street, I would have doubted your statement. Now, I think you have no idea how far special interest have gone to to secure a financial advantage.

  • avatar
    Ion

    Toyota’s mad because they sell more truck and suv models as a brand than Chrysler or Chevy.

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      Big trucks? Not a snowball’s chance in Hades. The Ram itself outsells the Tundra by an almost 4 to 1 ratio. Year in and year out the Silverado is one of the best selling vehicles in the county. Medium sized trucks? Ford and Ram gave them that part of the market and the Colorado/Canyon tries. By about an 11 to 8 ratio, not too shabby. In 2011 Equinox/Terrain outsold RAV4, the Highlander outsold the Tahoe, and the Suburban outsold the Sequoia. The winners seemed to win by about a 2 to 1 ratio.
      Tundras and the Titan have never caught on with the work site crowd. One of the few markets the Asian companies haven’t penetrated.
      I’m not trying to sound pious, GF is stuck in traffic, I’m bored, and dinner has been delayed.

    • 0 avatar
      Ion

      Yes but then they also have the FJ, 4Runner, Land Cruiser, Tacoma and I’m not sure what CARB considers them but theres also the Venza and Sienna.

      None of them might light their segments on fire but all those sales add up. If they can classify the Pruis V as a truck the same way a PT Cruiser was their average fuel economy for trucks would really jump.

  • avatar
    OldandSlow

    The Ranger’s hey day was during the nineties when it shared drive train components with the Aerostar and the roll your own Explorer. The Ranger was really a truck.

    The classification of car-based SUVs as trucks like my Mazda Tribute, a.k.a. the Ford Escape was part of the death knell for the Ford Ranger.

    Ford had little incentive to revamp the Ranger, when vehicles like the Escape were averaged in for CAFE purposes trucks.

    That has since been changed. As of 2011, the Escape is now classified by the DOE as a car.

    http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2012_fotw726.html

    The unintended consequences of Ford relying on the Escape as part of their truck CAFE average is they are no longer in the compact pickup game – but Toyota still is sort of with the single cab version of the Tacoma, last updated in 2005.

  • avatar
    carbiz

    Governments all over the world meddle in the auto market. The biggest/best way is via gasoline taxes. The U.S. and a few assorted oil-rich basket case countries are the only exceptions to that rule that I can think of.
    Which is why cars the size of the Camry/Impala/Taurus only sell well in the U.S.
    Just imagine what a .25 per gallon gas tax would do for the U.S. debt.
    Canada exports oil, yet we pay about $1 a gallon more than across the border….

  • avatar
    ProfessorSlow

    The point of the accusations isn’t the existence of CAFE standards, it’s the specific wording of details and exceptions in the latest revision. As stated above, the revised regs were unfavorable to hybrids – technology where Toyota was far ahead – and highly favorable to flex-fuel vehicles, which are really only offered by specific (now taxpayer-owned) brands and generally of no interest to consumers. There are other shenanigans alluded to, which don’t actually save gas or help emissions and are really only meant to reduce competition, which really only leads to fewer good choices for American car buyers.

    Really the best example is the bizarre exception tailored specifically for the Corvette, by using a very specific wheelbase value, which has now resulted in a stretched Porsche 911 to match up.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      It’s not like Toyota hasn’t offered FFV full size trucks so they benefit from that bonus too. Also GM is the only one that’s sold any Hybrid trucks so far and Toyota did sign an agreement with Ford to develop their Hybrid truck so I’m not seeing anything to cry about there either.

  • avatar
    Steve65

    The only aspect of this story I’m really curious about wasn’t included: In what WAY is the CAFE regulation defining a full-sized pickup written to exclude the Tundra?

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “I’m really curious about wasn’t included: In what WAY is the CAFE regulation defining a full-sized pickup written to exclude the Tundra?”

      In the proposed rules that were published in the Federal Register, a full-sized pickup was defined as having: (a) a bed at least 48 inches wide, (b) a bed at least 60 inches long, and (c) either a minimum of 5000 lbs towing capacity or 1700 lbs. minimum payload.

      Whether or how that would impact Toyota, I have no idea.

      • 0 avatar
        Steve65

        Based on the picture accompanying this article, I’d guess they fall afoul of the “bed lenght” requirement. They’re certainly as gargantuan as every other full size out there in other respects – especially the superoversized wheel/tire package.

        After checkeing… nope. Bed is 66″ by 66″ on the shortbed. laughable, but meets the spec. Maybe it’s the load of towing capacity.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Charge a sizable penalty at the DMV based on what your Escalade or Ford Raptor weighs and its MPG. Drive a Prius, Yaris or whatever and score yourself a huge rebate.

    Government gets nothing.

    • 0 avatar
      Steve65

      In California, this is partly in effect now. Open bed trucks are required to be registered commercial, with part of the fees based on unladen weight. My 1988 car just cost me $97 to renew. My 1989 truck is about $250, with the difference being the weight fee.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “My 1989 truck is about $250…”

        Is it diesel? Trucks or not, Expeditions, Escalades and big SUVs get passenger car plates in California.

        Since we happen to live in a Nanny state, why not give those already driving tiny cars and hybrids a further (yearly) cash reward for being good kids? Give the bad kids driving big vehicles a bigger penalty.

        A sizable tax increase at the pump would cut into the finances of everyone that’s already doing the right thing for the environment and CAFE. If you’re in the service industry or trucking, you’re already running as lean as possible. Who drives a Freightliner when a Hino or Isuzu would do?

  • avatar
    JCraig

    Without any government intervention the domestic auto industry would be long dead, along with the steel industry and manufacturing in general in the US. We’re the victim of our own success. Our standard of living rose to the point that other countries easily under cut us on cost. This will be the case until the world is more or less economically equal. That’s not my Utopian ideal but a simple fact. Imports were already killing Detroit on MPG. CAFE should be welcome since it at least makes Detroit spend the money on developing technology and more efficient cars. Increased efficiency also keeps rising gas prices in check to some extent.

    People who want the market to decide everything seem to love a world of constant crisis. One in which we consume to the point of exhaustion, enter crisis and collapse, then repeat.

    • 0 avatar
      Dr. Claw

      If this site had a “Like” button, I would have broken my finger clicking it so much to this reply.

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      Outside the auto makers and the steel industry, where has the government intervened? Manufacturing has been slashed. I don’t agree with the meme of they didn’t do it by themselves. We do have some world class manufacturing in the US.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        The financial markets.
        The housing industry.
        The airline industry.
        Aircraft manufacturing.
        The oil industry.
        Heavy-truck manufacturing.

        To name just a few.

  • avatar
    rnc

    The major problem with using CAFE to increase milage vs. taxes are taxes are what are supposed to pay for our decaying EIS, and the huge sprawl that emerged from that to creat the false economy that lasted for about 20 years. CAFE increases eff., decreases tax revenues and leaves us with option of letting system degrade and decay (which seems to be what we’ve choosen) or use other tax resources, but what tax resources? Those M1-A1′s have to be upgraded to M1-A2′s (we only already have a few thousand of those). Using Taxes would make so much more sense (doctor and lawyer wives could still drive thier expeditions, tahoes, etc without any worry to school and the grocery store without worry). For Farmers and Contractors make them purchase a special plate, verify that is what vehicles are being used for F250 out at 11pm without the slightest scratch with a contractor price would equal one hell of a ticket). Truck makers would adjust, Ford already is, eco-boost, (the real boost would be them manufacturing thier design that uses direct gas injection and port ethanol injection, along with twin turbos(or electric supercharger/turbo mix), 3 litler would outproduce 6.2 in terms of torque and milage by a mile), bring over 8 speed transmissions or better yet add 4 speed overdrive on top of that. The Lux/ultra-lux/supercar buyers wouldn’t care and maybe we could fund what has been unfunded for decades (in vegas and online you can bet on who’s infrastructure will desentigrate first, our’s or china’s (our’s by lack of maint. and investment, china’s by lack of proper engineering, controls and materials).

  • avatar
    CelticPete

    CAFE sucks because with it people drive MORE miles and there are MORE people on the road. A long drive at 32mpg is alot more palitable then one at 15mpg.

    So the end result of CAFE is more people driving and more people living farther away from where they work – in less safe cars. I’d rather have an across the board carbon tax.

    Yes it should apply to planes and power plants as well.. That would be the way to lower our dependence on fossil fuel. The CAFE requirements are not helping the enviroment. It just makes the self righteous types feel all high and mighty..

    OTOH its fairly well documented that actual high gas PRICES keeps people off the roads. You will here a big song and dance about people who have to commute 100 miles a day. But the people that actually HAVE to do that are few and far between.

  • avatar
    jimmyy

    Even though I am a conservative, I support CAFE. I wish CAFE had higher targets. Why? Because the world needs to make the oil last a very very long time. Imagine the war that would ignite if oil ran short? The world needs oil to last until an alternative energy source is developed. And, that is a very long way off.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      I’m an Independent, and I believe that we’re not going to be running out of oil anytime soon, and certainly not within the next two hundred years by some estimates.

      Just because the current administration is fighting us tooth and nail about oil exploration and drilling on public lands doesn’t mean that drilling and extracting on private lands is not being increased on a daily basis. It is increased on a daily basis. The only thing keeping it from moving faster is the low price of oil per barrel. It costs millions to sink one well.

      There are so many known oil reserves around the globe but it isn’t yet economically beneficial to the oil companies to extract it from the sources.

      America is the only nation that craves oil the way we do. Asia may be an emerging area for increased demand, but America leads the way in demand for oil. Europe is an anomaly all its own.

      And why not? America was built on coal, oil and nuclear power. Gasoline is the lifeblood of the US auto industry. Most Americans do not care about the price of gas.

      They may p!ss and moan about the price of fuel while they’re filling up their tanks but then they move on and buy that latte or fast-food. They’ll buy fuel until their money runs out.

      Gasoline, diesel and oil products are a bargain at any price and in many cases it beats walking.

      I’ll admit that I’m addicted to gas, just like most Americans. We won’t stop buying gas, no matter what it costs. And the oil companies know and understand this. So does the US government.

      The worst that could happen for the US government is for consumer spending to stop because of the re-allocation of disposable income to buying gasoline instead of discretionary goods.

      All this talk about alternative sources of energy is great, but none will displace oil, coal and natgas as the prime source of energy for America.

      That’s what I’m betting on, and I’m living my life accordingly, driving vehicles that suit my wants and needs, without regard to mpg or the green-wienies.

  • avatar
    rnc

    It’s not running out, it’s cost of current supply (20 years ago 3/5th’s of the world’s population was riding bikes (India and China)or public transit, (the soviet block countries weren’t known for mass-car ownership, but SU was 2nd or 3rd largest exporter of Oil at the time)), those 3 billion people are driving or want to drive soon. Oil was around $10/barrel in 1991, this was saudi crude, easiest to get at in the world (What is $/barrel now during a world recession?). So that leads to next part of problem, cost of future demand as population continues to increase at rate that earth can’t sustain (China’s one child was more than compensated by India’s 9 or 10 child policy) and this population boom is taking place in east asia, not some rat holes (sorry for use of term, but genocide only seems to matter to the world when it takes place in europe or a country with resources we was) in africa, these people can and will buy cars.

  • avatar
    bd2

    Pretty funny that a right-wing Republican is siding with Toyota and complaining about CAFE standards not going far enough for light-trucks.

    Also pretty funny about Toyota complainging about domestic “homerism.”

    The domestics have to meet the same CAFE standards as Toyota when it comes to cars and light trucks; it’s not their fault if Toyota doesn’t sell as many light trucks.


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