By on January 16, 2018

After what feels like an eternity, the Trump Administration finally feels confident in releasing its alternative to efficiency rules created under former President Barack Obama. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will provide the details on the new fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks sometime before the end of March.

This will be followed by partisan arguments as to why it’s the best and worst idea in the world.

NHTSA Acting Administrator Heidi King said in an interview at the North American International Auto Show that the updated rule will be released by March 30th, declining to discuss any specifics. However, the popular assumption is that the new rules will be less burdensome on automakers through 2025. The NHTSA said it wasn’t ruling out altering mandates on 2021 model-year vehicles.

“It will be a proposal that will stimulate dialogue, robust listening to the data and the stakeholders that should inform a decision before we go to a final rule stage,” King told Bloomberg on Tuesday.

Despite agreeing to the Obama-era Corporate Average Fuel Economy in 2011, automakers have lobbied Trump and other officials to reexamine the current standards. Carmakers claim that low gasoline prices and lukewarm consumer interest in “green” vehicles make stringent CAFE limits extraneous. While that’s not a particularly green mentality to have, their point is somewhat valid. Gas is relatively cheap and people are choosing to purchase larger, less-efficient vehicles. In fact, the United States’ shopping habits have stalled the countries’ sales-weighted average fuel economy at 25 mpg for over four years.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

140 Comments on “Trump’s Updated Fuel Economy Targets Are Coming This March...”


  • avatar
    Sub-600

    No matter what’s proposed, climate believers aren’t going to like it. Drill, baby, drill!

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      We are already drilling baby drilling. The market can’t absorb anymore drill baby drill. There is global glut in oil production. It isn’t worth it for producers to drill baby drill. They oil companies don’t even care about the North Slope of Alaska right now because there are 3000 capped wells of shale oil right now that they can turn on in 3 days to 3 weeks (depending on location and costs) to meet demand without punching anymore holes. 3,000 wells right now. As the price goes up, desperate producers go to market and will lower the price right back into the 40s per barrel.

      Don’t you care about coal miners? All that cheap natural gas from drill baby drill is killing coal.

      • 0 avatar
        I_like_stuff

        “There is global glut in oil production”

        That’s why the price of oil is up 50% in the past 6 months.

        • 0 avatar
          APaGttH

          …That’s why the price of oil is up 50% in the past 6 months…

          The price of oil is up because the USD has weakened under the Trump Administration and the price of a barrel of oil moves relative to the currency. There has been an uptick in demand in Europe also, along with SPECULATION on production.

          However, there remains an oversupply of oil globally and the prices are still when adjusted for inflation, at very low levels.

          I’m guessing you’ll accept Fox Business as a news source…

          http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2018/01/15/oil-prices-pressured-by-rising-u-s-rig-count.html

      • 0 avatar
        RHD

        Man, there are so many unemployed people just dying to go underground and get Black Lung Disease while earning minimum wage.
        Who says Trump doesn’t care about the little guy?

        • 0 avatar
          I_like_stuff

          RHD,

          Please don’t change in the next 3 years. It’s people like you and your attitudes that will ensure a Trump re-election.

          And PS: Income for a coal miner is $60-80K, up to $100K for managers. It’s not that you don’t know these things, it’s that you know these things so wrongly.

          https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/coal-miner-salary-SRCH_KO0,10.htm

    • 0 avatar

      No matter what’s proposed, half the country will complain.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      CO2 traps heat. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is going up. It is mathematically easy to calculate how much CO2 collective humanity is adding to the air via carbon based fuels.
      How high do sea levels have to get, how little if any ice at the North Pole remains before deniers finally begin to suspect their beliefs?
      I’m 65, so I guess In don’t care personally, but I have this silly desire to see Homo Sapiens to not make the planet biologically less hospitable or to go extinct.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “No matter what’s proposed, climate believers aren’t going to like it”

        South Africa is under a severe drought. Cape Town will run out of water in 3 months.

        The acidity of the world’s oceans are rising and oxygen levels are dropping.

        It is predicted that in two years “renewable energy” will cost the same or less as hydrocarbon based energy.

      • 0 avatar
        jdogma

        “It is mathematically easy to calculate how much CO2 collective humanity is adding to the air via carbon based fuels.” Yes, but it is not easy to determine how much concentrations go up. The increase of CO2 from .03 to .04% has resulted in a 14% increase in green cover on the earth(which btw has a cooling effect, and causes to be CO2 used at a faster rate). We are in a long term warming trend that predates the industrial revolution buy thousands of years. Don’t try to pin warming on CO2 until you have done calculation on the caloric heat input into the atmosphere by humans – if you want to blame humans when we have a hot core, a variable sun, over 40,000 volcanoes, etc. Consider that all our food is made by plants taking CO2 from the atmosphere. If levels drop to early 1900 levels, we are screwed in terms of food production. If levels drop to .02%, plant growth stops, and we all die.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        And the last time the planet had a cooler than average year was in 1976. The increase in global temps is moving pretty much in lockstep with the buildup of C02 in the atmosphere. Not that this matters to the deniers – the T-Rump administration is afraid of science. Hence the attempted coverup and removal of tons of relevant information on the EPA website.

    • 0 avatar
      MoDo

      They’re going to be relaxed. Sergio (and other auto CEO’s) have met with Trump many times about this and NAFTA. Sergio more or less hinted that they’d be relaxed during his press interviews at NAIAS.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    I’ve been shoveling a lot of global warming this winter, and I therefore think we could use some more twin-turbo V-6, V-8, V-12 power options to get through all the snow-drifts.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Local weather events do not prove or disprove global trends.

      I could as easily state that Seattle tied it’s all-time record high for January yesterday, and has had a run of 3 days in a row of record warmth in January (and a chance to make it 4 today) as 100% proof of global warming.

      But local weather events do not prove or disprove global trends.

      Ask folks in Australia what they think for example after their record-shattering warmth. Or ask the folks in Moscow who had a year with no summer in 2017. Or ask the people in Nicaragua who just had record rainfall – or California and their record rainfall, followed by record heat, followed by record fire. Or the people of Caribbean that some islands had back-to-back Category V hurricanes roll over.

      Oh my Gods, it’s [cold] or [hot] out my window so climate change is [false] or [true] is just plain ignorant.

    • 0 avatar

      IT’S COLD WHERE I AM RIGHT NOW SO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED BY 99% OF THE SCIENTISTS ON THE PLANET IS WRONG!

      • 0 avatar

        The 99% number thrown around is wrong. A college student arrived at that number by taking a sample of ~1100 and throwing out ~1000 of the answers she didn’t like. Then she fudged it further That didn’t stop people from blindly parroting the statistic.

        Here are other reasons the stat is bunk. If you don’t like these sources below, there are many other explanations available.:

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#2162d5743f9f

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

        • 0 avatar

          The bad study was by Kendall Zimmerman in 2009

          • 0 avatar
            RHD

            The deniers have very selective hearing, and believe that they are wise because they fall for the AM radio talk show brainwashing. Incredibly, they are proud of what they think they know, to their, and everyone else’s, demise.

          • 0 avatar
            I_like_stuff

            It’s really ironic that those who hate religion the most also are the most religious about gloBULL warming. No matter how much evidence they’re shown, they still believe the fairy tales.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ RHD

            We aren’t the people who believe we can control the climate.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            Papers published related to climate change have been reviewed by various groups and the conclusions have been roughly the same. Consensus on climate change is in the high 90 percent range.
            Would you get cancer treatment from a Doctor recommending a regime based upon 98% of the studies or a treatment prescribed by a 2 percenter?

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        I think the scientists are likely mostly correct. I just don’t give a sh!t. I’ll be long dead before it is a real problem, and I didn’t reproduce. By nature, I tend to tread lightly upon the Earth – I’m too cheap for much extravagance in my life – I won’t pay for it.

        And I happen to the think the Earth is wildly overpopulated with us upright hairless apes, so hopefully Mother Nature can manage to do something about it. Life is incredibly tenacious and will go on with or without humans.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          “I think the scientists are likely mostly correct. I just don’t give a sh!t”

          This is the most intellectually honest response I’ve read about this here in some time. Seriously.

          The rest of you deniers should just follow this example and you wouldn’t look like raging morons pretending to be experts in a complex field you know nothing about.

          • 0 avatar
            jdogma

            The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway.
            Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
            Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
            Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm.
            Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
            Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelt which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
            This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 94 years ago. Check it on Snopes. While you are at it, try calculating the atmospheric temperature rise due to caloric heat input from burning fossil fuels, as opposed to the heat input from radiative absorption by C02. You will find ~ 10x the heat input. Use the same oil production numbers, covert to btu and use the specific heat of air along with the total weight of the atmosphere. If you are intellectually lazy, believe the BS that is being fed to you. If you are truly interested, do a bit of work and research.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @jdogma – Why cut and paste something that one might actually check?

            I looked at that Snopes story. They closed out the article with this:

            “As interesting as this nearly century-old article might be from a modern perspective, however, it isn’t substantive evidence either for or against the concept of anthropogenic global warming. As documented elsewhere, the warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen, not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole.”

            HaHaHaHa

    • 0 avatar
      ClutchCarGo

      You do understand the difference between weather and climate, don’t you?

      https://xkcd.com/1732/

    • 0 avatar
      Zipster

      For many years scientists tried to tell people that smoking was dangerous for one’s health. Most smokers disputed that. Millions found out to their chagrin that they were wrong, greviously wrong. Today that science is now generally accepted and smoking has declined greatly. Unfortunately in this instance, unlike the smoking tragedy where is was mainly just the smokers and their families who suffered because of their stupidity, now we must all bear the consequences.

      If people refuse to believe the science on climate change, why do they apparently believe the science on smoking? Can some people only learn when it is too late?

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        “If people refuse to believe the science on climate change, why do they apparently believe the science on smoking? Can some people only learn when it is too late?”

        Maybe some people refuse to believe in climate change because they know that this planet has experienced continuous climate change for more than 4.5Billion years.

        • 0 avatar
          ttacgreg

          True, but might you be open to the idea that it is happening extremely quickly, as in unnaturally fast?

          How high do sea levels have to get to maybe convince you?

          How do you foresee dealing with higher sea levels?

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            ttacgreg, I’m open to anything and everything because it is actually happening to SOME people living in the areas that are affected now.

            But it doesn’t affect me. It is pretty damn cold where I live in the desert.

            “How do you foresee dealing with higher sea levels?”

            Move inland!

            If you build at the water’s edge, you’re just begging for flooding. It’s a given that it is going to happen. Like in New Orleans.

            This planet has always been dynamic. Always changing.

            I bet the Eastcoast could do with some of that Global Warming right about now.

            My brother in Manhattan, NYC, told me it is so cold that the building’s central heat system can’t keep up and they have to use additional electrical space heaters throughout their hi-rise apartment.

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            …My brother in Manhattan, NYC, told me it is so cold that the building’s central heat system can’t keep up and they have to use additional electrical space heaters throughout their hi-rise apartment….

            As someone who is responsible for the operation of quite a few building in NYC we are also experiencing the same thing. The cause? The buildings that are affected with this problem have been identified as having such poor control of air infiltration that as fast as we can pump the heat in, the air leaking through the building sucks it out. We have renovated some floors and in the process added interior “storm windows”…problem solved without any modification to the old school heating system. Too bad this site does not allow for posting of photos…the thermal images we took for before and after are incredible.

        • 0 avatar
          228

          As George Carlin said – “The planet is fine. People are f****d.” You do understand that humans didn’t exist for 99.999999% of those billions of years. And they will cease to exist once more. The planet will be fine.

          • 0 avatar
            krhodes1

            Bingo!

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            In terms of geological time, George Carlin is correct. We could nuke the face of the planet and, given enough time, the planet would remake itself in favor of the new matrix.

            Human time frames, no such luck. We can, and are, changing the global climate dynamic faster than anything we have found in historic records, barring a cataclysmic event like the one that wiped out Dino.

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        Science is a Liberal conspiracy, doncha know?

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          I’m sure that SOME people take it seriously. Sounds like you do.

          Many others, like myself, are less reactive to the alarmists wails and cries that the sky is falling and the water is rising.

          Climate, weather, planetary attraction and repulsion are not forces that we have control over, nor that we can stop from happening. Or even alter.

          We human beings have to adapt to whatever changes will occur. We adapted in the past to all sorts of changes like volcanic outburst, shifting sands, mountains, etc.

          It is also entirely possible that our planet will be hit by an asteroid or meteor of sufficient size like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.

          Had we modern day humans been alive then, there would have been nothing that we could have done to prevent it from happening.

          Just like there is nothing we can do about the ever-changing climate on this planet.

          Worried about CO2? Plant trees instead of cutting them down all over the planet.

          • 0 avatar
            228

            You really should do some research on trees. You know, the science thing. Research. Numbers. Statistics.

          • 0 avatar
            ttacgreg

            So, moving inland is the solution? Have you told that you your bother in Manhattan?. Tell that to people in the LA Basin. Tell that to the state of Florida.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          Don’t bother, Greg, the guy’s an idiot on these topics.

          Sorry, HDC, that seems flippant but it’s true. You’re absolutely clueless on this. But you’re far from alone in the B&B.

          EVERYONE’S a climate expert here. If the field of cardiothoracic surgery was somehow tied to automotive regulations, everyone here would think they’re qualified to conduct a heart valve replacement as well.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            30-mile fetch wrote,

            “Sorry, HDC, that seems flippant but it’s true. You’re absolutely clueless on this. But you’re far from alone in the B&B. ”

            Not at all, bud.

            Different people choose to believe different things. And I’m fine with that.

            Where would we be if we all believed the same thing?

            What rubs me, and many others, the wrong way is when one group’s mantra and belief is forced upon us.

            I’m cool with the green weenies choosing to believe that human life on this planet is doomed to be exterminated by global warming, but I don’t believe it.

            I choose to live my life by a different standard.

        • 0 avatar
          markf

          “Science is a Liberal conspiracy, doncha know?”

          The same science that says there are more than 2 genders and that vaccines cause Autism? Cause that is what liberal science tells us……

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “Cause that is what liberal science tells us……”

            As opposed to what?
            Conservative science like birtherism, creationism, sexual orientation as a choice, incarceration/criminality, marijuana as gateway drug….. ad nauseum.

            Science isn’t liberal or conservative.

      • 0 avatar
        jdogma

        In one case you have a simple correlation (smoking and lung cancer), in the other case you have significant factors that are very likely to be more significant than the radiadive absorption of a trace gas. Consider that both CO2 and H2O vapor are greenhouse gases. Water vapor is poorly characterized and highly variable in the atmosphere, averaging ~2 to 3 percent. CO2 levels are at 0.04%, or about 1/100th the levels of another greenhouse gas. You are going to blame CO2? What do these trusted scientists say about why the core of the earth is hot? Might that be significant? Ha – they can’t agree on why the earth’s core is hot. Our primary source of heat is the sun. Is it always giving consistent radiation? No. What most scientists do agree on is that we are in a long term warming trend that predates the industrial revolution by thousands of years, and that the warming has made the earth a better place for life. Speaking of learning, leaked emails from climate researchers are available for you to read. I read over 100, and had my eyes opened as to what game they were really playing (bring in the $).

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      Please shovel it to here in the Colorado mountains. The Dillon reservoir for Denver’s water supply has not yet frozen over. In my 40 years up here, it has always frozen over by mid to late December. For the first time in my 40 years up here, it was too warm for ski resorts to make snow for much of November.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “I’ve been shoveling a lot of global warming this winter”

      @stingray65……..Wow….. you are correct even though you were not intending that comment to be a statement of fact.

      The North Pole and Alert Bay, the furthest north settlement in Canada were warmer than Southern Canada in the last cold spell we had. There has been warm spells in the Arctic this winter that caused puddles to form on sea ice.

      Less Arctic ice allows warm air to head north unabated. Dense cold ice keeps the north colder and “deflects” warmer air and warmer ocean currents south. You loose that balance and the Arctic and “high” North gets warmer and we see the kind of storms that have hammered the USA.

      Russia sees global warming as a net positive to them since warmer weather will increase productivity and open the Arctic to their military and shipping fleets.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        Man-made global warming theory predicts that human sourced greenhouse gases (most notably CO2) will lead to warmer temperature and environmental catastrophe. For a theory to be considered valid, it must be proven valid by observation, and immune from empirical attempts to falsify it. Global warming models have not been predictive of the last 20 years when temperatures have been virtually flat according to satellite data (the best source), while greenhouse gas emissions have continued to grow. Furthermore, a theory that says extreme drought, floods, snow, rain, heat, cold and everything else in-between is a sign of man-made global warming cannot be falsified, because nothing can disprove the theory. This means global warming does not qualify as a scientific theory, and you would be an absolute idiot to use it as the basis for destroying the whole world economy.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Stingray65 – Oceanographers have been sounding the alarm bells in relation to increased CO2 in oceans and decreased oxygen levels.

          98% of those who study climate as well as overlapping scientific disciplines concur in relation to man made climate change.

          Climate models evolve as more information is gained and as technology becomes more sensitive at sensing change and predicting change.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            Science is not a popularity contest. Large majorities of “scientists” said we were facing an ice-age in the 1970s. Eugenics, Newtonian physics, and bloodletting were also scientifically approved by majority rule at various points in time.

            And even if you believe the scientists are correct this time, there is no way that we can reduce greenhouse gases by 80% in the next 20-30 years. Are you living in a cave without heat or electricity? If you aren’t willing to do what is necessary, why should the 7 billion rest of us?

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @Stingray, do you dispute that manmade events/conditions cannot disrupt natural events/weather patterns?

            If so how do you explain the ‘killer’ fogs that enveloped London for 100 years until the end of coal fires/generation?

            Or the ‘smog’ alerts that we used to see issued regularly in North American cities prior to the changes in emission standards to vehicles?

            Of the effects of deforestation?

            Or the impact on marshlands and natural waterways when humans ‘straighten’ rivers and create concrete abutments/barriers?

            Or the ‘burning’ urban rivers of the 1960’s and 1970’s?

            Even the change in wildlife population with previously foreign species like armadillos now being seen regularly in Ontario?

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            Arthur,
            Big difference between air pollution and climate change. Almost all the problems you list have been solved with relatively minor adjustments to technology (i.e. adoption of fuel injection and catalysts) and industry (stopping clear-cutting and dumping of raw waste into rivers). Science predicted that doing these things would have positive effects, and the results proved them correct. So far, climate models have not had any predictive power as they have all drastically overstated the degree of warming that has occurred in the past 20 years (which is basically zero), and the costs of “fixing” the problem are hugely greater than stopping killer fogs in London.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Stingray65 – as I said earlier, would you choose to get cancer treatment from a Doctor who is basing his treatment on what 98% of the studies cite or from the 2% ?

            Science is not a popularity contest. That is the significance of consensus. Currently the majority of scientists cannot find an alternative theory that works.

            Einstein for example and his theory of relativity is still being studied and challenged. Does that mean he was wrong? No. it means that science is functioning as it should. There is currently a consensus among scientists that it is a valid theory.

          • 0 avatar
            jdogma

            “98% of those who study climate as well as overlapping scientific disciplines concur in relation to man made climate change.” This is total BS! To prove I’m wrong, post a list of the scientists (hopefully showing their degrees). There are hundreds of thousands of scientists, so I expect a pretty big list.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            If 98% of the doctors say cutting off my head will cure the disease, I think I’ll seek a second opinion. There is no significance in consensus, only in empirical results and by that criteria climate “science” and is a total failure and desperately needs a new theory.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “If 98% of the doctors say cutting off my head will cure the disease”

            Stingray – You are really really reaching on that one.

            Consensus means second opinions have already been collected. i.e. the vast majority agree.

            @jdogma – LOL. The burden of proof is yours not mine.
            You believe scientific disciplines studying oceans, environment and climate are wrong, not me!

          • 0 avatar
            jdogma

            “You believe scientific disciplines studying oceans, environment and climate are wrong, not me!” Wrong. I know, not believe, that there are many scientists that don’t think CO2 is a significant driver of climate, and I am among those scientists.

          • 0 avatar
            jdogma

            “LOL. The burden of proof is yours not mine.” LOL! I asked you to prove your 98% claim. You made the claim, not me. I said it is BS and it is.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            “…and I am among those scientists”

            Oh, good. Have something out in peer review then? A citation would be lovely, if there are multiple authors you can even retain anonymity. If not that, then perhaps a citation of a published study using your caloric heat input assertion above?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @jdogma – as far as your claim to be a climate scientist…..

            CITATIONS REQUIRED

            To answer your 98% query:

            “Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

            1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

            2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.”

            #2 comment is ironic considering your comments.

  • avatar
    Heino

    I do wonder what MAGA actually thinks about fuel economy, or is it a purely NHTSA issue. I remember when I lived in NY, he bought a Ferrari F430 (2007?) There was also a 1988 Cadillac Trump Series limo, which as you may expect had exquisite appointments.

  • avatar
    carguy

    Whatever they will decide, I doubt it will have much of an impact on car manufacturers plans. China and the EU are pressing ahead with increased efficiency requirements which will continue to drive global R&D for better economy.

    Also consumers are expecting increasing efficiency with every new generation no matter what they buy.

    • 0 avatar

      This 100% – it doesn’t matter what we do, the global marketplace needs to cater to global regulations – China and the EU are far more strict and manufacturers will need to respond.

      Just like how we’ve fallen behind China in Green Energy (and, in my opinion, national security due to our failure to move forward with sustainable energy).

      • 0 avatar
        I_like_stuff

        Or……

        Car companies will continue doing what they have done for decades; sell different products to different parts of the world based on the different demands of said parts of the world.

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        Ricky, do you seriously think that Ford and General Motors would be better off financially if they built cars per China and EU regulations instead of light trucks per US consumer demand? They can do both, but they’d be stupid not to build profitable, high volume trucks.

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        It gets worse, there have already been efforts to tax renewables to shelter carbon fuels from competition, especially since renewables are on the cusp of being less expensive.
        It would be nice if we had a genuine free market rather than crony capitalism.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @ttacgreg – traditional energy producers have already successfully lobbied against “renewables”.

          Here is one of many examples:

          “Dominion bought up offshore wind leases off the Virginia coast three years ago but has yet to develop them, leading to speculation that the company simply bought the leases to prevent their development. In this year’s legislative session, Dominion successfully lobbied against several bills that would have expanded the market for distributed (rooftop) solar. And last year, Dominion defeated a statewide cap-and-trade bill in the Virginia legislature.” 2016

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        I read somewhere recently that GOP/conservatives want to apply a tax on the importation of said renewable energy equipment into the US.
        The fossil fuel interests are extremely powerful and influential. They also martial some damn effective public opinion manipulation, causing large numbers of people to believe the opposite of reality. Take the example of the tobacco advertising and lobbying and how they fought for the public’s mind over the 50’s until recently as an example, and multiply it by orders of magnitude in the case of the carbon energy crony capitalists and petro-states.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    I’m not as concerned with CAFE limits as I am with energy independence, which ought to be a national priority.

    Drilling, alt energy, EVs, and V8s are all good with me.

    But I’d like to see an end to fuel/road taxes, because they are increasingly ineffective due to rising CAFE. Here in PA, taxes comprise over 25% of the pump price.

    Road taxes should = GVWR x miles driven, calculated on an annual basis.

    This way, EVs, ICEs, and big trucks all pay a fair amount. But oddly, people would rather pay an invisible unfair tax at the pump than a visible fair tax each year.

    • 0 avatar
      jack4x

      There would need to be a way to distribute tax revenue to where the roads are used. Here in NW Indiana we get a ton of trucks driving from Chicago to Michigan disproportionately wearing out our roads. With the fuel tax, there is at least a chance that some will stop and buy diesel in Indiana, and pay state tax. With a mileage tax, presumably it would be paid to the state where the trucking company is headquartered, or to the federal government. Either way IN is missing out.

      If there is a way to reconcile that, I’m all in favor of this idea.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        @jack4x: Perhaps selective road tolls can fill the hole you’ve mentioned.

        For example, few people in PA know that the PA Turnpike is funded by tolls, not taxes.

    • 0 avatar
      I_like_stuff

      Washington state is going to that model. Road taxes will be paid by miles driven. And supposedly in exchange for that the state gas tax will be eliminated. But, since it’s WA, and it’s run fully by progressives, what will probably happen is the gas tax stays AND the per mile charge is implemented. Anything to save mother gaia and the children!!!

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      The benefits of roads are not limited to those who drive, nor are their benefits directly correlated to miles driven. Even people who play video games all day and order everything on Amazon benefit, even if they rarely leave the house. Mileage specific taxes encourage more cocooning, and could have adverse affects on the economy.

      We need to pay for roads out of the general fund. That is the correct way to address the future of alternative fuels, not mileage based taxation.

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      @SCE to AUX: “I’m not as concerned with CAFE limits as I am with energy independence, which ought to be a national priority.

      Drilling, alt energy, EVs, and V8s are all good with me.”

      Correct me if I’m mistaken, but it sounds like your top concern here is US energy security. I fully agree with that.

      You say you support electric cars. Which makes sense as in combination with renewables they would reinforce US energy security. In that context it seems odd so many favor US energy security but oppose renewables and nurse hatred for ev’s.

      And then you voice approval of vehicles that use excessive amounts of fossil fuel. This obviously undermines US energy security by slurping up the resources that create the security. Whether or not you are concerned with pollution, surely digging up and then burning fossil fuels as fast as possible must seem like a bad idea.

      So I’m left wondering about the consistency of your statements. Of course you are far from alone in this apparent inconsistency.

  • avatar
    MoparRocker74

    Do away with CAFE and let the market decide. Period, end of story. Otherwise, you just get the automakers throwing away billions on sketchy tech that only serves to meet regulations but benefits the buyer in no way. People wont pay for greenie mobiles unless theyre worshipping at that alter. That’s a small demographic and it isn’t growing.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Yeah, one thing for sure as more fracking rigs are coming back on line as they are in the Southwest: The price of gas will go down!

      Add to that the ecstasy of the US economy and the stock market passing 26000 this morning before profit-taking, and yeah, things look pretty darn good for the automotive industry in the US.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        If the USA economy is doing so well why is the USA dollar so low?

        China is considering selling off all of its USA bonds. The damage to the USA would be immense and may explain why #45 stopped talking tough about the trade deficit with them.

        “According to the Treasury, the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt is China, which owns more than $1.24 trillion in bills, notes, and bonds or about 30% of the over $4 trillion in Treasury bills, notes, and bonds held by foreign countries. In total, China owns about 10% of publicly held U.S. debt.Mar 18, 2017”

        Some are saying stock market is as much a bubble as BitCoin.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          @Lou_BC

          The flagging dollar is caused by our trade deficit. If not for the forex shenanigans of foreign countries, the dollar would have fallen sharply decades ago, particularly against the yuan, to address the enormous trade imbalance. Instead, China purchases US t-bills (dollars) to give the US a capital account surplus to offset the current account deficit. Japan is notorious for doing the same. Both nations hold over $1T in US forex.

          There is a litany of exculpatory claims made by foreign nations who insist that US policy forces them to manipulate currency by holding USD forex. They may have a point. Regardless, we want foreign nations to stop holding US forex as a means of artificially stimulating dollar value which makes US exports expensive abroad and foreign imports cheap at home. Therefore, China and Japan reducing their holdings of US public debt has always been the goal.

          The currency panic is being driven by fake news and the gold-bug industrial complex. That’s not to say the market won’t correct at some point, but the notion that Americans need the Chinese to hold trillions of dollars in US public debt is a dystopian fantasy born in some coke-filled bathroom on K-Street. It’s not in the best interest of the average American, who wants employment and demand for US goods and services. China is not well-served to absorb the inflation caused by US quantitative easing.

        • 0 avatar
          jdogma

          “why is the USA dollar so low?” Compared to what? Check out a 10 year USD/EUR chart. It is quite a bit stronger relative to the Euro.

          I do agree that it is getting a lot weaker, and the reason is that it is being printed with nothing to back it up. It is being used to make rich the people who control the printing and distribution of the newly printed paper, at the expense of people that work.

  • avatar
    MoparRocker74

    Do away with CAFE and let the market decide. Period, end of story. Otherwise, you just get the automakers throwing away billions on sketchy tech that only serves to meet regulations but benefits the buyer in no way. People wont pay for greenie mobiles unless theyre worshipping at that alter. That’s a small demographic and it isn’t growing.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      I agree! I too long for the days of clouds of smog over US cities, chronic lung disease from pollution, and rampant asthma. Let’s make America look more like Bejing again!

      • 0 avatar
        TwoBelugas

        what does MPG mandates have to do with air pollution? Modern gasoline powered cars are extremely clean.

      • 0 avatar
        I_like_stuff

        Ronald Reagan has a great saying about liberals: “The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

        So CAFE standards reduced asthma and lung disease did it?

        “During 2001–2011, the number of persons with asthma in the United States increased by 28%”

        But please do go on…..

        https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/pdfs/asthma_facts_program_grantees.pdf

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Oh no, not facts!

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “But please do go on…..”

          Okay……

          Did you know that there are different types/causes of asthma?

          There are theories as to why asthma rates are going up:

          One hypothesis is “the environment is too clean”. Our bodies need to be exposed to *natural* foreign substances to learn not to over-react. This factor may affect “allergic” asthma.

          Some postulate the cause may be due to chemicals that are body aren’t conditioned to deal with.

          Another theory relates to the normal “flora and fauna” on/in our bodies. We are covered in bacteria and there may be “different” strains found in urban environments.

          This isn’t related to asthma but lung cancer rates have leveled off.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        I don’t want to touch nitrogen oxide emission regulations, just the fuel economy ones.

        Like people have pointed out, they aren’t the same thing. You would get more severe smog in a city filled with 45MPG uncorked diesel compacts than one filled with port-injected 20MPG 4.0L V6 mid-sizers.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Absolutely agree. CAFE is a classic example of over regulation. On the other hand, it has helped sell lots and lots of fuel guzzling pickups, so it’s not all bad.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        If you want to do away with MPG targets – fine. Pollution Controls – keep.

        I would vote with my wallet and still be looking for a certain MPG target (25 real world mpg highway is very livable for me), but I hold nothing against those who would vote with their wallets for a gas V10 barreling through the Eisenhower Tunnel pulling at the rated towing limit.

      • 0 avatar
        kosmo

        Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

  • avatar
    V16

    Carmakers claim that low gasoline prices and lukewarm consumer interest in “green” vehicles make stringent CAFE limits extraneous.
    Happy times may be ending, with oil approaching $70 a barrel and another driving season closing in.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      Very doubtful. Over 3,000 wells are production ready in the various shale oil deposits. Some of those wells sitting for years waiting for oil to get back to $60+ a barrel so they can at least break even. Producers will turn those on with the current pricing and the market will sustain. The oil glut will continue.

      Drill baby drill in the shale oil fields has caused a massive glut of natural gas, completely collapsing commercial pricing. Power utilities are abandoning coal as fast as they can because natural gas is so plentiful and cheap. The boom in the Bakken, Powder River, etc. killed Appalachia (not regulations)

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      And this is fine. People will go after subcompacts again. Because as I see, while gas is inexpensive, people careless how much they burn through. They buy what they like, not what they need.

      • 0 avatar
        I_like_stuff

        “They buy what they like, not what they need.”

        How dare people purchase products they enjoy? We need govt to tell them what they need damn it!

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          While fundamentally it is un-American, and even bad for business, global warming or not, having these fine machines to burn through million barrels of gas a day can’t be good for the environment we live in. In Europe they been doing this for long time – high fuel tax, tax on engine size, even 100% tax for car ownership. This forced people into smaller more efficient vehicles. Which, might be not most pleasant thing but probably right considering that everybody talks that they want their children live better than themselves. But how will they live better if from the childhood they breathe poisoned air, drink poisoned water, eat poisoned food, get exposed to all sorts of radiation?

          In case of gas tax, gov doeasn’t limit you to buy v8 pickup. they just give you incentive not to.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    The United States doesn’t really dictate fuel economy standards globally anymore. China’s requirements are becoming more stringent, along with their taxation models. There is a reason why so many automakers now have 1.4 and 1.5 liter engines in their cars and SUVs. Because China puts a hefty tax on engines over 1.5L displacement.

    The largest car buying economy in the world isn’t the United States, it’s China, and nothing is going to change that given China’s population and rapidly growing middle class, and the United States population and shrinking middle class.

    So the standards might get lowered, but the car makers will continue to build with China in mind. Further, it sure appears to me that Ford and GM are tuned in to the fact that a major event that sends gas prices spiraling would destroy their business if not diversified. FCA on the other hand…

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      US is still the most profitable market. That’s why the manufacturers care.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      APaGttH, vehicle manufacturers can and do make some vehicles with small displacement engines to avoid China’s engine displacement taxes and other vehicles to meet US market demand for trucks. The problem is CAFE imposes a weighted average fuel economy requirement and penalties that don’t match up with actual US customer demand. Further, the vehicles that bring down the average tend to be extremely profitable while the ones that bring up the average are not very profitable. There’s a reason Ford invests in aluminum bodies and 10 speed automatic transmissions for the F-150 while canceling US sales of the Fiesta and delaying redesign of the Fusion.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        To be crystal clear, I agree that CAFE is anti-business. I’m also the guy with 4 vehicles and 16.2 liters of displacement between them, and one of them is 1.9 liters. My daily drive gets 15 MPG on a good day.

        I fully acknowledge that the Chevy Bel Aire of 2018 is called Silverado, that the Crown Victoria of 2018 is called F-150, and the New Yorker of 2018 is called RAM.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    CAFE needs to go on the ash heap of history.

    In the interest of getting some of the bro-dozers off the road, I’d be OK with higher gasoline taxes, provided other taxes are reduced to offset.
    .
    .

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    Maybe people would take climate change more seriously if the main proponent wasn’t nicknamed “The Science Guy”. Anyway, it’s snowing again and my Hemi has been warming up for 30 minutes, I suppose I should go to the store before rush hour.

    • 0 avatar

      The Science Guy has been making some decidedly unscientific claims lately, set to terrible music. Say, aren’t you the guy who coal-rolled me in my Miata?

    • 0 avatar
      I_like_stuff

      The “science guy” has a degree in mechanical engineering. Not a PhD or Master’s mind, you just a bachelor’s. Yet somehow a guy with a BSc Eng is now the undisputed king of all things related to climate. Ohhhh kay. Since I have a finance degree, from now on I wish to be called the Finance Guy and anyone who disputes a word I say shall be deemed a denier and mocked.

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        How does your expertise compare with his? Superior?

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @I_like_stuff – You were posting links about asthma earlier. Since your education isn’t medical, does that mean everything you posted about asthma should be denied and mocked?
        You aren’t a “Climate scientist” or oceanographer so that must mean everything you posted about climate change should be denied or mocked?

        A person can be a “science guy” if you apply the scientific process.

        Science by definition is this:

        “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    It will be interesting to see how far Trump’s team relax pickup FE regulations.

    Maybe the best solution is to remove CAFE and increase fuel tax to modify consumption.

    People will say pickups are used for business. Then offer a tax rebate for business operators.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “…increase fuel tax to modify consumption”

      That doesn’t work in the US, unless you’re talking about cigarettes which can kill you.

      People burned $4 gas almost as fast as they burn $2.50 gas. You could double the gas taxes and it wouldn’t change a thing except tax revenue.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Big Al from Oz – The current US government just cut taxes and have relaxed regulations on industry. A fuel tax would be political suicide considering looming mid-term elections.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        SCE to AUX,
        I can’t believe your response.

        I find it odd that people think American’s are different to everyone else on the planet.

        Even the US health system is poor and yet there are low taxed countries with public health. But it can’t work in America.

        Humans are humans. If the price of fuel increases people will gradually opt for more efficient vehocles.

        • 0 avatar
          ttacgreg

          Don’t find it odd that people here think we are different from everyone else in the world.
          That happens to be my viewpoint, but in a contrarian way to that propaganda narrative.
          Lots of people here in the USA buy into the narrative that we are the exceptional nation, the indispensable nation, the last and best superpower.
          We are exceptional indeed, just not in the way those true believers think, and often it is 180 degree off from what they think.

  • avatar
    I_like_stuff

    Well if all the predictions about EVs are true, this will be a moot point, no?

  • avatar
    slavuta

    Mr. Trump,
    bring down this CAFE wall

  • avatar
    TW5

    I want to be optimistic, but the average American has no idea what lies ahead. They want to believe that CAFE 2025 will work like CAFE 2016 and the US will continue making cost-effective incremental gains. Sorry, that’s not what CAFE 2025 is designed to do. It’s a revolution that will fundamentally alter the industry and the cars we are accustomed to purchasing.

    If Americans are not onboard, Congressional debate will devolve into absurd arguments about the climate apocalypse. The citizens will be mostly forgotten.

    In my opinion, these are the critical reform objectives:

    1. End the pointless preference for inefficient fullsize trucks to relatively-efficient fullsize sedans
    2. Secure the 4×4 segment by creating an exception for offroaders and BOF SUVs (I would allow BoF vehicles with at least 1 solid axle to be categorized in the most lenient truck standards)
    3. Raise the standards ever-so-slightly, but extend the compliance window to 2040
    4. Try to get rid of footprint regs if possible. NHTSA wants them for safety, but they are utterly absurd from an mpg standpoint.
    5. Protect manual transmissions via off-cycle credits, since manuals can easily beat their EPA numbers.

  • avatar
    ernest

    I don’t really have an objective answer, but I am certain of two things.

    1. Whenever the Government gets involved, something’s going to get screwed up.

    2. Whatever screw up happens will directly impact my wallet.

  • avatar
    St.George

    I’m sure the president doesn’t dictate the actual MPG figures and timeline but instead provides some sort of guidance. The way I see it is:-

    1- The current targets are high and are looming and were set by some virtue signalers who personally would be unaffected by the outcomes
    2- The industry can’t go back to a free for all, so some sort of reasonable and realistic target, as well as implementation timeline makes sense
    3- It gets ever harder and harder to squeeze remaining efficiency from conventional IC technology
    4- It makes little sense that vehicles such as CUV’s (sedans on stilts) somehow are classified as trucks and are therefore have lower efficiency standards. With the irrelevance of the passenger car sector (declining volumes), all of the efficiency standards in the world will make little difference

    No one wants to go back to the days when your eyes would water due to the exhaust fumes when a car passed by. Some sort of ‘light touch’ policies to encourage efficiency as well as the promotion of renewable/alternative energy sources should be implemented. Heavy handed policies only hurt the poor & middle classes trying to get by.

    My 10c worth, take it for what it is.

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      @St.George:”The current targets are high and are looming and were set by some virtue signalers who personally would be unaffected by the outcomes”

      Developing and using means for burning vast amounts of fossil fuels, such as huge pickups, isn’t a form of virtue signalling?

      How do efficiency promoters avoid being affected by better mileage? Does no one benefit from higher mileage standards? Such as US energy security?

      • 0 avatar
        St.George

        @brandloyalty, what I meant by that is that our benevolent overlords seem unaffected by the decisions they make. It is important for them to signal loudly ‘look at me and what I have done for (in this case) the environment’ to further themselves in the eyes of those within their circles. The fact that perhaps CAFE would drive up the purchase and running costs (service, maintenance etc) of the average vehicle matters less to them because of their wealth & subsidized transportation. As ever, it is the poor and middle classes that bear the brunt.

        I’m not quite sure what your first question means but am happy to provide my viewpoint if you could clarify.

        Regarding energy security, I’m not sure how much of an impact switching from (for example) trucks to CUV’s would make. I prefer the approach of diversity of power generation, grid and transmission upgrades and to ensure that the current fossil fuel industry (which is diversifying into renewables by the way) survives in a sustainable way.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Your $.10 is on the mark. CAFE 2025 is a revolution we don’t need and we can’t afford. At the very least it should be extended to 2040. CAFE 2025 maintains the perverse incentive for relatively inefficient CUVs in lieu of relatively efficient sedans. That could be fixed.

      Finally, NHTSA added the new footprint-based model-specific standards. Not sure if that power grab was really as necessary as they claim.

  • avatar
    vehic1

    Don’t the trump yahoos recall how much gasoline prices have dropped since their all-time peak, late in G.W. Bush’s final term, of about $4.11/gal.? The oil companies aren’t about to explore, refine, and transport gasoline at a loss. Also, additional oil production drives more natural gas production – which would further damage trump’s impossible goal of saving the moribund coal industry. None of that matters to him, however; the only goal is to willy-nilly repeal every single thing Obama ever did, whether good, bad, or indifferent. It’s all about trump’s revenge for Obama’s public roasting of him at that Correspondent’s Dinner in 2012.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      First, Trump “yahoos” understand that the oil price crisis of last decade was caused by criminal thwarting of US resource development by bad actors within our government. Even the election of green-bug Obama couldn’t stop DC from pushing through resource development. It was the only way to save our economy in the near term after the mortgage meltdown.

      Second, coal is not used exclusively for power generation. It’s also a key ingredient in metallurgy, and finding metallurgical coal and exploiting it is of the utmost importance still, regardless of what Obama says. Furthermore, coal is extremely easy to ship by road, rail or oceanic freight. Natural gas is expensive to ship. It requires pipelines and specialized ships. It’s also a safety hazard, and it requires small amounts of sulfur to be added so humans can detect leaks or natural gas concentrations. That’s why so much natural gas is simply flared at the point of production. Unless manufacturers can capture huge quantities, it’s not worth the trouble.

      You need to snap out of it, sheep. This is real life. Your political ethics are meaningless.

  • avatar

    “It’s all about trump’s revenge for Obama’s public roasting of him at that Correspondent’s Dinner in 2012”

    If that’s true, it’s pretty bad-ass.

  • avatar
    Roader

    “But you and I both know that with only 2% of the world’s oil reserves, we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices…”
    President Barack Obama, March 2012

    [National average for regular at the time was bumping $4/gal)

  • avatar
    jdogma

    30-mile fetch – No, I have not published a paper. My main work is fluid dynamics at the moment. I simply made calculations based on oil consumption and the estimated btu release. Try it yourself. If you need further guidance, hit me up, seriously. As to why such an obvious question is not discussed – what contribution does the caloric heat input from the conversion of hydrocarbons to CO2 in combustion processes have on heating our atmosphere?, I have no answer. As far as human causality in heating the atmosphere, there has to be some because we have 8 billion people and only 196 million square miles of total surface (including ocean). That means ~ 40 people/sq mile or about 1000 x 1000 ft per person. The weight of air distributed equally would be 14.7 lb x the number of square inches on that plot. I suggest that the real issue we face is overpopulation. Strange that the same people that want tax CO2 ignore the population issue. Suggests to me that it’s all about money.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Very well put.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      jdog (may I call you jdog? It has a ring to it), I appreciate your honest and level response. I may squawk about the tactics of anthropogenic climate change skeptics (particularly those who, unlike you, have no interest in the scientific method and attack it reflexively out of fear of the policy implications), but I have no vested interest in the dire predictions being true. I’d rather they not be, and I’d rather not feel the hypocrite for driving my gas pig 4Runner into the backcountry. Because I’m certainly not going to stop doing that.

      I enjoy your back-of-the-envelope calculation as a thought experiment–that sort of exercise is a great way of developing hypotheses and research questions. I have no idea if it’s correct or why it hasn’t been explored in the literature. But this isn’t my arena either.

      As for the money, it is certainly true that researchers have the real pressure to publish and lassoing onto the hot topic of the day, if only tangentially at best, is an appealing way of increasing your odds of funding. I don’t like the direction it can inadvertently steer otherwise solid research in some cases. The flipside to this is the incentive deep-pocketed corporations in the energy industries have in funding their own more favorable research. They have far more funding power than the NSF, and the tobacco and pharmaceutical opioid industries have demonstrated pretty effectively what that can do.

      In any case, I’d much rather see this debate hashed out over critical analysis of the primary literature, but instead we have people with no background or understanding of the field citing editiorials, cartoons, and the current temperature of the Eastern Seaboard as definitive proof of their position when they should just be saying “look, I don’t understand the science but I don’t care–it’s not worth giving up my car”. I much prefer your approach because you are taking an empirical stab at it.

      And I agree about overpopulation. In a lot of ways. But it apparently drives our economy. I’d much rather have been born a century ago, but then there was pertussis and polio and the Kaiser.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • boowiebear: They are not prepared for biotech and have no RNA bioreactor. It is more speculative ideation. I work in...
  • tankinbeans: Yo no quiero.
  • tankinbeans: Is the 2.5 you referenced the hybrid for the Escape? I thought the only engines available for the Escape...
  • downunder: We had the FIAT variant, 7 Seats, tri zone climate control. 6 speed 2.4. The best aspects? The...
  • Lou_BC: @Denvermike- Pickup based duallie trucks don’t hold up on gravel roads under heavy loads when expected...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber