By on October 9, 2013

grundler

In an extensive interview with the Automotive News, Christopher Grundler, director of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality, said that the auto industry is ahead of schedule on meeting the Obama administration’s new fuel economy standards that mandate a nominal average of 54.5 mpg (according to CAFE calculations) by the year 2025.

 

He said that most redesigned cars are already meeting the proposed 2016 CAFE standards. Grundler’s office is responsible for making sure that new car’s meet pollution standards and that their advertised fuel economy isn’t overstated. Recently, Hyundai and Kia were charged by the agency with overstating gas mileage claims and the EPA has also pressured Ford about it’s mpg rating for the C-Max hybrid, whose real world fuel economy doesn’t seem to match its EPA rating of 47 mpg. Grundler says that the EPA’s aggressive regulatory stance will continue and that the agency is shifting personnel resources from developing new environmental and fuel economy technologies to compliance and enforcement. He also said that the agency is working on finishing “Tier 3″ rules for tailpipe emissions and gasoline, in order to harmonize federal standards with California’s strict tailpipe emissions rules and that the agency is also looking at ways of harmonizing U.S. emissions standards with those used globally.

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

54 Comments on “EPA’s Top MPG and Emissions Cop: Industry Ahead of Schedule to Meet New MPG Standards...”


  • avatar
    Onus

    Nothing new. The 54 mpg is a unadjusted epa mpg, aka the old mpg which is quite inflated. The numbers you see on the sticker is that number reduced by a certain percentage. Simple as that.

    Once you figure out how the whole system works you realize it isn’t hard to meet. The good thing unlike the original CAFE the mpg requirements are harder each year. So after 2025 they get even more stringent.

    I know the EPA was / is / already worked with the eu to develop a harmonized emissions testing procedure. It used to be you needed to test each engine on totally different equipment. It was harder to develop engines that meet all the different emissions standards at once since the testing was so different.

    • 0 avatar
      HerrKaLeun

      In addition, the 54mpg is for cars. Since the EPA lets manufacturers classify as trucls (like RAV4, CRV etc.) it will be easy to meet.

      They also overinflate credits for EV etc. Meaning for the car manufacturer an EV counts like it woudl eat CO2 while driving instead of zero CO2 (or less if you nclude power plants).

      The EU is not much better. A heavier car can emit more CO2, why woudl a manufacturer reduce weigth (which woudl reduce consumption) whne more weight gets rewarded. In addition the EU CO2 goals give credit becasue manufacturers have cars that cna use E10 etc., so they pretend every car drives with E10 and producing ethanol does not produce CO2…

      • 0 avatar
        tedward

        “lets the manufacturers classify cars as trucks”

        And the bitter irony of that was on full display yesterday with the Audi Q3 story. Audi’s little wagon/CUV can’t come in as a CUV without a steeper approach angle, which means less front lower bumper and more tire exposed to the wind. So instead of a wagon we get a CUV, and instead of a CUV with decent aero properties we get a bizzare shape whose only purpose is to evoke old off roading equipment while simultaneously ruining fuel economy on a solely street capable station wagon.

    • 0 avatar
      E46M3_333

      “The good thing unlike the original CAFE the mpg requirements are harder each year. So after 2025 they get even more stringent.”

      Thank God for that. I’m looking forward to the day when I’m regulated into driving a bicycle to work.
      .
      .

  • avatar
    sirwired

    It’s funny how every time the standards get ratcheted up, there is inevitable bitching and moaning from the auto industry about how horrible the standards are, how they are going to be nearly impossible to meet without unsafe, underweight, small, underpowered, unreliable and expensive cars.

    The standards eventually get put through, and cars keep getting safer, heavier, bigger, more powerful, more reliable, and at prices that just about keep pace with inflation.

    And, on another note, can we please flip MPG over to European-style numbers? Figuring out how much actual gas consumption drops (and how likely a fuel economy improvement is likely to pay off) is a lot easier with GPM (or, more likely gal/100mi.)

    • 0 avatar
      HerrKaLeun

      All these standards are written by the car industry… truck loophole, EV credits… no sane person coudlhave come up with that.

      Like the tax code is written by lobbyists, EPA regulatiosn are written by the lobbyists as well.

      The higher fuel prices did more to improve real life fuel consumption than decades of CAFE. Until recently europe did not have any CAFE style regulation, only high gas prices.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        Yep. Mileage regulations just increase costs, bloat government, reduce choice, enrich lobbyists, and keep politicians and bureaucrats fat. The government has no business in the mileage regulation business in the first place. It just screws consumers and taxpayers, further corrupts the politicians, and distorts the market.

        I wonder if the 4 door pickup truck would have become the new full-sized American sedan without CAFE?

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Good question. But full-size cars were only popular because trucks only had 2 doors. For families with one child, trucks were fine.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Well that sure explains the decrease in car sales and increase in trucks sales during the implementation of the original cafe standards
            (Sarcasm)
            There was never anything luxurious about trucks, no one ever dreamed upgrading their old car to a top of the line pickup (auto & A/C)

            People loved big cars, but cafe destroyed them for the better part of 30 years, and new cars cannot compete with old cars, prices demanded for a iron block LS with RWD are ridiculous thanks to standards such as cafe.

            There are no other choices for full size cars availible today that can compete with trucks. If GM made a 5.3 RWD sedan BoF for around 20k, it would fly off the lots. Unfortunately regulations require so much equipment that the price isn’t possible. The customer base exists and are forced into trucks.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The Japanese redefined expectations for the mainstream car market.

            The Germans redefined expectations for the luxury car market.

            Large truck-based vehicles were the only unique thing that the Americans had left. There wasn’t and still isn’t much competition because there is almost no market for full-size trucks outside of North America.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Sure, CAFE had a lot to do with killing full-size cars, but it was getting too expensive to fuel the beasts even before CAFE clamped down. They were headed for extinction regardless. At least you could justify a (2-door) full-size truck for their utility if not 4wd, style and whatnot. With or without a camper shell, kids could ride in the back. But we dreamed of 4-door trucks, long before they existed.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Pch101 – It’s hard to say how big of a niche market, full-size trucks could carve out for themselves in Europe, if it wasn’t insanely high EU truck tariffs and their vendetta against V8s. There’s nothing else like them in Europe and other places (other than grey market), but that can be a huge selling feature. Mid-size trucks that are common to the world, don’t offer much more fuel economy and aren’t so small. And then there’s oneupmanship aspect, that helps propel German car sales. Picture a Raptor or Harley F-150 vs. a Hilux… “Where’s the ‘Lux’ buddy???”

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Have you been to Europe, Mike?

            Europe is not the US. Between the high fuel prices, narrower roads in urban areas, the prevalence of diesel vans for moving cargo, and the move toward carbon-based registration fees, there is no real market for US pickups there.

            If there was a market there, then they would already be selling them. Ford, GM and Fiat all have European operations, so they could build them there or import them there if they liked. The fact that they haven’t bothered should tell you something.

            And you could get rid of the EU’s 22% tariff on cargo vehicles, and it still wouldn’t make a bit of difference. They tend to think of American vehicles as a joke.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Pch – I’ve been all over Europe and still not swayed. Have you been to big cities in the US? They’re not exactly welcoming to a full-size ‘anything’ either. Try cramming an F-150 into a “compact” parking space? Not happening. Beach communities are worse. Driving an F-150 in the US can be a Royal PITA too. Ask me why I know…

            And it doesn’t matter on what continent you drive a full-size truck, because you’re not using it for a long commute. Commutes are shorter in Europe if you do. Don’t forget mid-size trucks can get worse MPG than full-size. And diesel engines would be available in full-size trucks too.

            I’m not saying full-size trucks would conquer all of Europe, but I guarantee you, F-150 sales in Europe would easily eclipse Tacoma sales in the US.

            But outside of North America, there’s a huge void between mid-size pickups and medium duty trucks, not currently satisfied. Why do pickups have to stop at mid-size? Full-size Euro vans take up the slack OK, but it’s not quite the same thing… Imagine if we took away BAFO’s stylish and luxury packed, mid-size 4X4 pickup and gave him a bland 2wd mini-van to love instead. If that’s all there ever was, he wouldn’t know any better. Try taking it away from him now…

            Grey market trucks are OK, but they’re crazy expensive and not quite the same as buying one at your local dealer with a warranty and for the price of a mid-size truck.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            So you would have us believe that GM and Ford, which have been building large pickups for decades, and which have been selling and marketing vehicles in Europe since before WWII, are too dimwitted to see all of the pentup demand that Europeans have for pickups.

            Your assessment is just as credible as the claims of the boosters of the manual transmission diesel station wagon in America. Again, if there was a market for Silverados and F-150s in Europe, then GM and Ford would be selling them there, right now.

            They already have the dealer networks to move and service them. They could even build them there if necessary. Yet they aren’t. What do you think that you know that they don’t?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @Pch – People buy from what’s on the menu and aren’t looking to sail in something from overseas and basically own an overly expensive fish-out-of-water with no warranty or parts support. But how many years were we fed up with our molester type vans, while Euro vans existed? Decades? Who would have thought they’d sell so damn good in the US? Ford? Yes OEMs don’t always know what’s best for themselves. You’ve proven that repeatedly. Yes there’s pent up demand. OEMs are thinking more worldly now because they have to. At the same time, you can’t over look the over-the-top sales of full-size pickups in the US/NA. Can that many Americans not know what’s best for themselves? And not every truck purchase comes down to economics or available parking. Outside of NA, trucks above a (slightly smaller) mid-size are strictly for commerce and not for personal or family use. Forget about off-road vans, hi-performance or luxury vans. Full-size trucks wear many hats where as full-size vans are strictly for work and necessitate another personal vehicle. Maybe it’ll take a shifting of mindset, but 1st you have to put it on the menu.

  • avatar
    schmitt trigger

    “I wonder if the 4 door pickup truck would have become the new full-sized American sedan without CAFE?”

    I’ve wondered this myself several times.

    “He also said that the agency is working on finishing ”Tier 3″ rules for tailpipe emissions and gasoline…”

    Would the EPA still be running in this government shutdown?

    • 0 avatar
      Onus

      Probably. One thing too. Tier 3 means we get 10 ppm sulfer gasoline! So look forward to that too.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Please elaborate.

        • 0 avatar
          Onus

          Gasoline will have to lower the sulfur content. Right now the limit is 30 ppm. The price of gasoline will go up slightly with the sulfur reduction.

          The lower sulfur its to help extend the life of emissions equipment. Sulfur poisons catalytic converters. It will also allow for more advanced emissions equipment says the EPA.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Thanks for the response. Sounds like the ethanol over MTBE thing a while back which increases the amount of fuel and significantly increases the prices of foodstuffs due to less corn on the market.

            In all honesty I’m not sure if they are making the cats out of better materials today vs 20 years ago, but the last cats I had to replace were in a 87 K Car (in 1998) and 92 Cavalier (in 2001). Maybe there is data to suggest otherwise but I smell another scheme to screw the drivers of the USA for special interests.

  • avatar
    NMGOM

    TTAC Staff (Gad, I wish you guys would use real authors!) – - – -

    Mr Grundler may be misled. The vehicle industry in this country may just have done the “easy things” first; it’s getting from 40 mpg to 54 mpg that’s going to be much more difficult. Does everyone want to drive a BMW i8, VW XL1, or other super hybrids, — much less pure EV’s?

    ———————–

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “it’s getting from 40 mpg to 54 mpg that’s going to be much more difficult.”

      The 54.5 mpg standard isn’t as high as it seems. Compared to the EPA window sticker, it’s closer to 40 mpg. There are plenty of ways to game the system.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    PCH101 is correct. CAFE numbers do not correlate directly to EPA mpg numbers posted on vehicle windows. The evolution of regulations will effect what we drive.
    Harmonizing NA standards with global standards will be the most interesting aspect. How will they do that? There will have to be a “happy” middle ground. EU standards seem to be tied more to engine size and turbo engines “test better” than larger normally aspirated engines. Those kind of standards would kill our V8′s for all but the “well heeled”.
    PCH101 is also correct that the EU doesn’t what our pickups. Vans are the prime movers in that part of the world. Most of our current domestic cars are EU based. Our next gen Big 3 vans are EU based as well. Those trends will slowly move through all of our products.
    Ford wants homogenization of rules between the EU and the USA (but not Japan – that is a whole different topic.)

    • 0 avatar
      Onus

      Japan is already working on harmonizing to ece so whats the point?

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “EU doesn’t want our pickups.”

      What’s funny is that you have no problem with the EU’s tariffs and you recognize the lack of demand for US trucks. Yet you can’t accept the converse, namely that the US doesn’t crave everyone else’s trucks.

      Neither the EU nor US truck tariffs matter because neither side particularly wants what the other side has to offer in this category. A tariff on a product that almost nobody wants isn’t a particularly effective tariff.

      If Americans wanted midsize trucks, then they wouldn’t have been discontinued here by the established makers. They were not popular, and were cancelled as a result.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        There is some truth to the fact that “we” do not want “their” trucks but how can one know that for sure with a 25% tariff?
        Tariffs and “restraint” programs have raised the price of products to where smaller trucks have to compete directly with bigger trucks. Why spend 10/10th the cost on a 9/10th size truck that gets 11/10th the mpg of a full sized truck?
        It is a huge picture that goes beyond tariffs BUT tariffs have shaped the market place. It is hard for anyone who has grown up in that “box” to see anything else.
        A story a while back linked the growth of the pickup truck market to the demise of most “large car” platforms and the introduction of crew cab pickups. We basically went from Crown Vic’s, Dodge Diplomats, and Impala’s to crew cab trucks. I’m just throwing out the name of a few land yachts as those weren’t the only ones.
        Roughly 1/2 of pickups are sold for work or business use. That leaves a huge market for leisure. How many of those crew cab pickup buyers are baby boomers clinging to the last bastion of “bigger is better” and “big V8′s?
        I’ve debated tariffs but I’m not naïve enough to miss the big picture. Apologists focus mostly on negating the effects of tariffs and since that doesn’t make sense, I will counter it.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          “There is some truth to the fact that “we” do not want “their” trucks but how can one know that for sure with a 25% tariff?”

          Is there some BMW full-size pickup of which I am not aware?

          In any case, you really don’t understand how tariffs work. When a tariff is that high, it encourages domestic production and loophole seeking. Nobody pays 25% — if there is enough demand to support it, then a loophole will be found.

          I keep asking you to look into this, and you obviously refuse to do it — go figure out how Mercedes manages to build a Sprinter van in Europe, partially disassemble it, then ship it and reassemble it in the United States, and still manage to sell it a price that is at least $10,000 LESS than the same vehicle in Germany. (And I am not including the 19% VAT included in the German price.)

          If the tariff was doing what you claim that it does, then the US price would be about 25% above the German price. Yet it’s the opposite — it’s a good 20% cheaper in the United States. Automotive economics don’t work in the manner that you believe.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    That guy looks like such a prick.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    CAFE has favoured larger pickups over smaller pickups, hence you will see pickups getting larger in size.

    We will see if the new Colorado will improve sales. But they will have to sell them in very large numbers.

    VW even stated that it is pointless to manufacturer midsizers in the US unless they can manufacture 100 000 Amaroks per year.

    So how can a market develop when a starting figure of 100 000 unit per year is needed. This means some form of import is needed, but the Chicken Tax prevents this from occurring.

    There is a large enough audience in the US market for large pickups.

    The US will align very closely with UNECE regulations, not European.

    I do get annoyed when the uneducated make silly comments like that.

    We use UNECE and we can manage larger vehicles than the Europeans.

    In the end the US has spent 50 years creating a market very different from other nations. I suppose now is the time for them to start to see what others are doing.

    V8s are dying anyway. Our market is mature in comparison to the US and the emission regulations and taxes favour gasoline, but marginally in comparison to the US. We are going down the diesel path and driving more smaller cars similar to the US.

    The Big 3 really need large pickups, or they simply don’t exist. They can’t manage effectively outside of a very protected market.

    The US is always wanting cheap energy. But energy is going to become more expensive, the use of energy will become more expensive as emission regulations gradually tighten.

    Many countries are better placed than the US to absorb the cost of higher energy prices. Energy is already much more expensive than the US.

    The people in the US should stop complaining about nations that have stricter emissions regulations and taxes on energy. Because thats the only reason the US is competitive.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      @BAFO – Actually mid-size trucks have done their fair share of growing too. Why do you think that is? It’s because of CAFE. They used to be subject to the Gas Guzzler tax before the 1991 ruling. Before that, we were deprived of the 4-door trucks (with a real back seat you can put live humans in) the rest of the world already had.

      And US trucks are in no way “protected”. Are you talking about the Titan and Tundra? What are they protected from? Spacey invaders???

      The Chicken tax prevents nothing. Millions and Millions of trucks have successfully gone around it. If the claim about “100,000 minimum” trucks is true (via complete knock down kits), importing 10,000 free & clear units yearly still wouldn’t be feasible, and they still have to be DOT/EPA approved. Not to mention setting up a dealer network. But the same would be true for cheap import cars that can’t sell a million units for their entire production run. So sad also, but who’s going to cry for them???

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Mikey – tariffs aren’t that easy to circumvent – maybe you need to re-read the story about Ford and Transit Connect. They got dinged for the “hide the truck in a car” ploy. Knock down kits seem to work real well, other than the Merc Sprinter – do you see a flood of kits around? or Sprinters for that matter?

        Your whole premise if full of fecal material. At least PCH101 looks at more angles. You need to think outside the box or at least cut some eye holes.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          You’re going to hang your hat entirely on one example?

          CBP went after Ford because there is some room for interpretation of the tariff rules, and CBP decided that Ford crossed the line.

          In the worst case scenario, Ford can do what Mercedes is doing and build them with knockdown kits. That won’t add 25% to the cost — given how these things work, I would doubt that it would impact the retail price much at all.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            PCH101 – No, but it is the most current example. Often one cannot directly compare vehicle costs between countries due to currencies, individual markets, et al. I am not familiar with the German economy, taxes, currency strength etc so I cannot comment upon why there is a huge price difference. it is a gross over simplification to say look we have a 25% tariff but their van in their market is 50% more.
            If the tariff is inefectual, why don’t we see a flood of Euro-vans being brought in by Ford, Chrysler or even GMC?
            you seem to think that it is highly profitable.
            Why not do the same with small trucks or full sized trucks?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “I am not familiar with the German economy, taxes, currency strength etc so I cannot comment upon why there is a huge price difference.”

            If you understand the industry, then it’s quite easy to know why.

            But more to the point, these types of tariffs obviously don’t create the results that you believe that they do. Instead of getting higher prices, the US is getting substantiallly lower prices, quite the opposite of what you’ve been telling us (again and again and again.)

            You keep squawking about the impact of tariffs, yet you are left flustered and with no tangible explanations when confronted with the real-world outcome of these policies.

            Since you don’t have any explanations, perhaps you should stop offering bogus explanations that don’t compute when scrutizined.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          @Lou – Ford was really cheating the system with the Transit Connect, but it’s not about how easy or PITA it is to circumvent the Chicken tax. It just comes down to dollars. And I’d be surprised if Merc spends more than a few hundred to complete the Sprinters at land fall. I do see Sprinters everywhere.

          The small truck market exploded from cut rate pricing. It went away for too many reasons besides price and economics. However, trucks have obscene profitability, so there’s no excuse for not selling them in the US, but they do have to sell.

          And what makes you think OEMs are dying to bring their crappy trucks to the US? Tata doesn’t bring over their trucks, but they also don’t bring over their cars or SUVs. We’re missing all kinds of crappy cars, not for sale in the US, including Ladas, and guess what? No Chicken tax for them.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Odd hw the whole discussion now has become a chicken tax debate.

            I suspect that we will eventually see unified “rules of engagement”, but until then, there will always be countries that are “more equal than others”.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            If it’s not BAFO that brings up the “25% Chicken tax”, like clockwork, it’s yourself. Of course it’s off topic, but when has that ever stopped you both? It’s called ‘trolling’, to be exact. And each time you bring it up, it’s as if it’s for the 1st time and all your trolling wasn’t proven false repeatedly. Short memory? What’s up??? It’s like watching “Ground Hog Day” on an endless loop…

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Again……………….

      DiM and Psycho101 have distorted my comment to suit their misinformative bull$hit. Deflection?

      The US vehicle market has developed into a market where full size trucks are given a very reasonable chance of success over a smaller footprint vehicle.

      There is a surprising amount of information that shows how the US vehicle market is skewed towards protecting Detroit. This has been the case for decades.

      You guys can argue until you are blue in the face, but you will not produce evidence to support your argument. Only your UAW opinion.

      The emission standards in the US is geared to provide the energy industry leeway. Why? Because it will cost money to expand and develop more refineries. How many refineries have been developed over the past 30 years? What are they geared to produce? Gasoline.

      How much distallate is produced at in Canada for the NA market? Who produces the most oil for heating oil? Where does most of the diesel for the US and NA market come from?

      You guys really are full of pootang.

      The Big 3 need full size pickups to keep them afloat. The refiners are calling the shots in DC.

      Look at what CAFE has done to you car market. Even Chev has stated they will cut back Chev SS import numbers because of CAFE restraints.

      I think you two should really look at facts, data and not MSNBC and watch Fox and Friends at breakfast.

      What is your comeback as usual Pch101? Are you going to rant about anti Americanism?

      Are you going to turn this into another one of your emotional, subjective bull$hit arguments and try and deflect it into some irrelevant debate? Just like DiM does?

      @Pch101 read your EPA website and see how gas is favoured against diesel. Answer this, what are the regulated improvement on diesel performance over gas by the EPA? 50%? And that’s just FE per horse power. You had better know your $hit if you want to debate me.

      You seem quite unknowledgeable at times. Only full of passionate argument. Most of the time unsupported.

      You wouldn’t know, would you?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        @BAFO – American trucks, like the Titan and Tundra, are totally protected I’ll admit, but they’re not any more protected than American cars, like the Camry, Corolla, Accord and Focus, for example.

        Still, the American auto industry is not any more protected than any other market. Actually, it’s less protected than any other meaningful market. Yes full-size trucks are extemely profitable and carry Big 3 OEMs. Regardless of how American trucks are “protected”, we love them, nothing compares to them or can keep us apart. US pickups are subsidized by DESIRE, BB!!!

        But what if they didn’t exist? All that cash would go elsewhere, possibly to vans, SUVs and everything else on the menu. Who the heck knows what would be as profitable or what would sell instead. Or if all that truck money was consentrated in say, brown domestic compact diesel wagons with a manual trans and THEIR profits went absolutely thru the roof, carrying the US Big 3. Then you would complain THAT was subsidized with another UNFOUNDED conspiracy theory…

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          @DiM
          WTF is a meaningful market?

          Can you express that numerically.

          Is a market of 1.2 million new vehicle sales per year meaningful?

          So, how many 10s of millions of vehicles are in the UNECE? Is that meaningful?

          Come on, again you talk with ambiguity.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAF0 – The UNECE market is meaningful enough, but it’s extremely well protected from imports.

            A 1.2 million (yearly sales) market isn’t much to speak of when divided up by OEMs and models.

  • avatar
    50merc

    The picture of the EPA guy must have been photoshopped. I’m pretty sure he has horns and a forked tail.

    EPA’s insane insistence on reducing CO2, expanding use of corn alcohol and jackbooted enforcement of cost-ineffective regulations makes it an enemy to the economy and the public. Sadly, zealots like the people running the world, er, I mean, the EPA never take a day off, even during a government so-called shutdown.

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    Aaah, just ignore the EPA. They’re a bunch of pinko commie preverts anyway. Why can’t the car makers be like the WWII vets at the WWII Memorial? Just ignore the government bums before they get the idea they’re calling the shots. People are defying the government in National Parks all over the country, so now might be a good time for regulator push back.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @Mikey – seems to me that the “groundhog” loop is a nightmare just for you. BTW, you and PCH were the first to bring up tariffs. It must be taxing for you and that is why you do not take responsibility for your chickensh!t approach to this debate.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    @Lou – I didn’t bring up tariffs and Pch mentioned them in passing. Yourself and BAFO went on full Chicken tax assault for no particular reason.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @Mikey – no it is not!

    @DenverMikey – there was a reason – it annoys the sh!t out of you.


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

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India