By on June 26, 2019

Canada’s federal government announced it has signed a memorandum of understanding with California to further reduce vehicle emissions. It would appear that the United States’ neighbor to the north has chosen a side in the gas war — at least spiritually.

Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, along with California Governor Gavin Newsom, announced the agreement’s signing on Wednesday.

“As the world’s fifth-largest economy and a global leader in clean transportation, California is a leading example of how climate action can be good for people, the environment and the economy,” McKenna said. “We look forward to working with California to fight climate change, keep the air clean and give drivers better options for cleaner, more affordable vehicles.”

Like the United States, Canada’s federal government is supposed to be reviewing its vehicle emission’s plan right now. But, while the U.S. situation has resulted in a stalemate dictated almost entirely by political allegiances, Canada seems wholly committed toward further reducing automotive emissions.

Until recently, the nation was aligned with U.S. emission targets and adopted Obama-era fueling regulations in 2012. However, the Trump administration’s proposal of a rollback created enough hubbub for it to reconsider that position. McKenna now says that Canada will no longer seek parity with the United States and intends to back California while acknowledging that the situation was not ideal. She also referenced the possibility of California setting its own emission standards, something the U.S. federal government opposes, saying “it looks like there will be two standards in the U.S.”

Meanwhile, Governor Newsom claimed that the reduction of greenhouse gases was “essential to [California’s] economic growth and prosperity,” adding “If you want to see if climate change is real, come to California. See what we’ve just come through in the past few years … Something big is happening. Mother Nature has joined the conversation.”

Automakers have universally come out against the dual-market solution, urging all sides to compromise wherever possible. On Tuesday, four U.S. House lawmakers led by Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI) once again asked California and the Trump administration to meet and try to reach an agreement that would maintain nationwide rules. Unfortunately, California and the federal government don’t seem interested in cooperating anymore.

“It’s not looking very good at the moment,” California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols, who also signed the memorandum, said on a Wednesday conference call with the media. She was responding to a question as to whether or not California could find common ground with the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Obama-era rules stipulate a crawling, fleet-wide fuel efficiency average of 46.7 miles per gallon by 2026, compared with the 37 mpg freeze the Trump administration has proposed — claiming it aligns better with consumer trends and market realities.

While little more than a gentleman’s agreement, the memorandum between California and Canada seeks to go above and beyond maintaining previously established targets while publicly acknowledging their shared goals. In addition to the (presumably important) emotional support and sense of camaraderie, the pair plan to collaborate on regulations aimed at reducing emissions, the promotion zero-emission vehicles, and have promised to work together on clean-fuel alternatives.

Canada is working toward having 100 percent of all light-duty vehicles sold within its borders to qualify as “zero-emissions vehicles” by 2040. It’s also offering rebates of up to $5,000 for qualifying ZEVs and additional tax incentives for businesses that want to shift into using to zero-emission fleets. Canada is also developing a “Clean Fuel Standard” that is supposed to reduce air pollution by 30 million tons in 2030.

Meanwhile, California has set aside $238 million of its 2019 budget for incentives for the purchase of electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles. It’s currently receiving support from other states in the gas war and Newsom said he’s actively trying to get them to adopt California’s stricter standards.

 

[Image: Jim Barber/Shutterstock]

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

66 Comments on “Gas War Watch: Canada Sides With California...”


  • avatar
    tylanner

    Gas War? More like Golden Circle Of Friends Senior Care Center for the Old and Wealthy watch….as Bill Barr said when asked about his tarnished credibility “Everyone dies”…..but serious people seem determined to not let that sad lack of resolve stifle progress…

  • avatar
    statikboy

    Is California still the world’s fifth-largest economy if you discount the porn industry?

    Why do people oppose higher fuel economy standards? You get a better car and a better place to live. Just makes sense.

    Oh, yeah, I forgot… “It’s my god-given right to turn money into pollution, and nobody better try and take it away from me!!”

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Those low displacement. direct injection, turbo engines are creating significantly more pollution than the V8s roaming around in the form of NOx emissions. Those Hyundai 2.0Ts look like they’re rolling coal everytime someone steps on the gas.

      CARB is making the pollution issue much worse.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        “Those low displacement. direct injection, turbo engines are creating significantly more pollution than the V8s roaming around in the form of NOx emissions”

        Source?

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Combustion at high pressures creates NOx and NO2, same way a diesel creates high NOx amounts. Cranking up the compression to make tiny engines compete with more appropriately sized engines is essentially turning them into diesel, same reason we see Mazda talking about gas engines without spark ignition. Not an issue with lower compression ratio engines.

          For sources just look high compression gas engines creating NOx emissions.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            But we aren’t talking a 400 CID V8 running 8:1. Ford’s 5.0 runs 12:1 while the 3.5 ecoboost has a static CR of 10.5:1. All motors nowadays, regardless of displacement, induction, valvetrain, or number of cylinders run compression ratios that were considered “track only” 20 years ago. Modern V8s get no pass here.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Skyactive is 13.0:1, up until 2014 the GM 5.3L was 9.6:1, I believe even that is up to 11:1 now. The L96 (outgoing 3/4 ton GM 6.0) is 9.4:1.
            I agree that even V8s are going up but eventually somethings going to happen to stop NOx emissions on everything and We will see if manufacturers decide to put dpf and regen on gas engines or pull back the CR.
            Using turbos to push small engines is wrought with issues, and cranking up the compression has its own issues.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        “Those low displacement. direct injection, turbo engines are creating significantly more pollution than the V8s roaming around in the form of NOx emissions.”

        All engines have to meet the same standards. So they don’t actually emit more NoX. The consumer is paying a higher price for more emissions equipment and calibration, however.

        “Those Hyundai 2.0Ts look like they’re rolling coal everytime someone steps on the gas.”

        Those are particulates, not NoX. Going forward, we’re likely to see more particulate filters appearing on gasoline engines rather than just being relegated to diesels.

    • 0 avatar
      deanst

      Government regulation gave us european diesels – that didn’t exactly work out well. North American regulation gave us the end of domestic cars. Until we just tax gas, we’ll get all kinds of unintended (but predictable) consequences.

      • 0 avatar
        Dman

        Nope! The ego of certain German auto execs gave us the diesel debacle. They were meeting the requirements until ssid exec decided they HAD to meet the standards AND meet an artificial power rating.

      • 0 avatar
        Dman

        Nope! The ego of certain German auto execs gave us the diesel debacle. They were meeting the requirements until ssid exec decided they HAD to meet the standards AND meet an artificial power rating.

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      “Why do people oppose higher fuel economy standards?”

      People oppose fuel economy standards that are preferential to larger, less efficient vehicles; and which increase costs and require greater technological complexity.

      I’d be all for increasing gas taxes in order to reduce fuel consumption; allowing people to decide for themselves what efficiency measures and technologies they value. Provided, of course, that every penny goes toward improving roads.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      “Why do people oppose higher fuel economy standards? You get a better car and a better place to live. Just makes sense.”

      This is exactly why regulators choose the approach of shucking the responsibility directly on the automakers. That way, the carmakers are the bad guys for increasing the cost of the cars and making the consumer pay for the tech required to meet the standards. All the consumer sees is the carmaker jacking prices and grumble out gouging while the politicians enjoy the do-gooder glow. They don’t connect the dots.

  • avatar
    gasser

    Please note that currently California’s “Special Blend” gasoline is $1.25 to $1.50 / gallon more than gas in the rest of the country. Considering the oceans of gasoline that California consumes on a daily basis, it is amazing that over the years refiners have still not been able to develop a way to reformulate the gas at less than approximate 50% surcharge.

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      The higher rate is due to:

      1) Well documented restriction of supply by refiners. The Flying J refinery story (formerly Shell) which was given state waivers on emissions and was closed anyway is a great example of this.

      2) State taxes on top of federal – I believe the highest in the nation

      3) Restricted supply in the northern part of the state tied to the Pacific Northwest closed loop. There are no pipelines that reach from the east into the far northern strip of California, so they are dependent on Pacific Northwest refineries that serve Washington, Oregon, most of Idaho, a strip of Montana, and a strip of northern California.

      The state of California also has multiple blends, as do other states do the vast differences in temperature and altitude through the state. The gaosline you buy in the Black Hills of South Dakota is formulated differently from the gasoline you buy in Aberdeen on the Washington coast, is formulated differently from the gasoline you buy in Houston, Texas, etc. etc.

      The last time I looked, there were 13 to 16 different formulations to account for altitude and climate in the United States.

      The gasoline you buy in San Francisco is a different formula from the one you would buy in Palm Springs and different from the one you would buy in Lake Tahoe.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      But just across the state line in AZ and NV that same gas from CA refineries is waaaaaaaay cheaper because of………. lower taxes.

      That’s why so many people fill up gas containers at Quartszite, AZ before driving into CA, so they have to buy less of it in CA.

      I remember one trip we took when we still had my wife’s 2012 Grand Cherokee and we filled up at a San Diego Shell station where gas was ~$4+/gal. A $100 bill did not completely fill up the gas tank.

      We got to Quartszite, AZ and the gas there was $2.369/gal.

      Even lower at Eloy, AZ.

      But the people in CA deserve everything they get. They voted for it. Hence they must “want it that way.”

  • avatar
    gasser

    Please note that currently California’s “Special Blend” gasoline is $1.25 to $1.50 / gallon more than gas in the rest of the country. Considering the oceans of gasoline that California consumes on a daily basis, it is amazing that over the years refiners have still not been able to develop a way to reformulate the gas at less than approximate 50% surcharge.

  • avatar
    Superdessucke

    Any chance of this being the first step in a beautiful marriage, as in permanent and off our tax rolls?

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      California pays out more than it takes in for federal taxes. South Carolina, on the other hand, gets almost $4 for every $1 in federal taxes they pay. Maybe Canada can take those leeches. North Dakota takes about $3 for every $1 they pay – they can just have the state anyway, I mean the state motto is, “at least we’re not Canada.”

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        I hear this alot, and while it may very well be true, it’s sort of meaningless without context. What constitutes “federal dollars to the state”. If we are talking purely welfare and what not, then sure, that holds water. But if we are talking money spent on say, Military installations and paying the troops garisoned there because it is way cheaper than parking them down at Coronado, then well…

        Also, this argument chaps my hide. I live in a so called “taker state” (Huntsville, AL). But the income tax assessment is an INDIVIDUAL assessment. Therefore me and the 46,000 plus dollars I paid in income taxes last year get lectured and beat over the head with this. Guess I’m a leech though because of my zip code though.

        Take your BS elsewhere

        • 0 avatar
          civicjohn

          @Art, +1, I’ll never see anything close to what I paid in to the Feds, not to me personally, but just on the things one would expect the Feds to fix. So raise my taxes some more because I don’t deserve anything, I’m kinda used to it now.

          And Huntsville rocks with the space industry. I remember many years ago when I was working with NASA to help communications between the different sites and I was invited to watch a Saturn V test behind 3 feet of Plexiglas. One of the most amazing things I have ever seen in my life. Went down with my son many years later to the museum with the same rocket on its side. Awesome.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            I love it here. Diverse industry, great schools, affordable housing, educated populace, and I don’t spend hours idling in traffic like I would have had I gone back to Atlanta.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Yes, additional context would be good.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Also, that 5th largest economy stuff is predicated upon California being a state. Now what if they left. Well you likely don’t need a massive Military but a military of any sort, which you’d need is massively expensive. Also, you consume more energy than you consume. Good luck with getting a favorable rate since you are now negotiating with someone in DC no longer concerned with your electoral votes. Then there is likely a significant chunk of the state that would likely want to stay, you know, Americans. And those Tesla’s? Enjoy the tariff. And the backlash. And the software industry? The US is better with California as a state and part of us…no doubt. But it is a viable nation without it. Is California viable without the other 49 states? Maybe. Are they still the 5th largest economy in the world? Not a chance in Hades. Don’t kid yourselves…you need the rest of the country too.

        • 0 avatar
          kjs

          I’ve had to make this exact argument to fellow Californians who’ve expressed sympathy with the silly secession movement: California is dependent upon US military protection and being part of a giant free-trade zone with the rest of the U.S. Our core agricultural regions would likely secede from California to remain in the Union (à la West Virginia), stripping the state of its ability to feed itself, and L.A. would almost certainly lose the water rights it stole from Eastern California. If California seceded, it might well end up a failed state. While the U.S. would lose some prestige, it would still have the largest economy in the world, bigger than China’s by the size of another California.

        • 0 avatar
          Daniel J

          Art, as someone who lives in the area and works in Huntsville, I agree. Birmingham loves to point out how much we take from the feds.

          As a state though, we still use alot of fed monies.

          I will disagree about the schools though. That’s Madison and a small portion of Huntsville city schools.

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      So Superdessucke, it sounds like we’re in agreement. You guys get to stop “funding” the moocher states. What’s with the hold up?

      • 0 avatar
        MBella

        Sorry, meant APaGttH, looked at the wrong post when copying IDs.

      • 0 avatar
        Superdessucke

        Yes we agree! I’d give my right teet to see CA annex with Canada or go off on its own. I’ll take my chances on the mumbo jumbo that they pay in 9x the taxes that a Trump State or whatever the talking point is. Let’s see it!

  • avatar
    deanst

    Canada – where a climate change emergency is declared on Monday, and the trans mountain pipeline is approved on Tuesday. (And I say this as a Canadian).

    • 0 avatar
      SkiD666

      Climate Change right now is a demand problem not a supply(pipeline) problem.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      deanst, you’re not the only Canadian who thinks that way.

      My Canadian brother-in-law in Vancouver, BC, continues to be very much PRO-oil and the export pipeline to Canada’s West Coast for export to Japan and China. He believes Canada should profit from the abundant natural resources it possesses.

      Maybe people who think in such manner just have a “money kind of mind.”

      • 0 avatar
        nemosdad

        HDC, I’m in Nanaimo Vancouver Island BC, the greeniest green pro party platform in Canada. Nearly every one of my friends wants the pipeline built, for the wages and the overall economy. Me too.
        It may have an adverse affect on the US economy though. Right now Canada has to sell x amounts of oil to the states for a loss, due to agreements made decades ago. Without gov. subsidies, they would be bankrupt.
        If Alberta can sell oil to oversees markets, it would be at world market prices. Alberta would try to break NAFTA and NEB regs to stop selling ANY oil to the states.
        A massive amount of oil for the refineries in Washington State would be starving for oil, as most of it comes from Alberta.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          nemosdad, so I believe that Canada should do what is best for its citizens. And if that means building the pipeline to benefit from those incoming revenues, so be it.

          The tariffs and oil-product sales that the US is enjoying right now are money to the Treasury. President Trump is right, America has never seen this much trade-money flowing IN to the US Treasury.

          As for refineries starving for oil, I believe that prices are kept artificially high by government so they can enjoy the income.

          If oil prices should drop due to an oversupply of product, BILLIONS of dollars would be lost to the governments.

          But if they REALLY need more crude, they’ll expand Fracking and exploration, even in Alaska.

          With the current 200+ year supply of KNOWN oil reserves, we have no way of knowing how much oil is yet undiscovered.

          I’m thinking it is a whole bunch.

          • 0 avatar
            nemosdad

            The oil (bitumen) that would be shipped to the states through the keystone pipeline would take a lot of overhead off of the American players.
            That oil would be shipped through American buyers (buying at the reduced rate) and sent straight to the gulf coast to fill tankers for off shore uses (being sold at world market prices.)
            Not BSW prices, but higher margin than Canada (Alberta) could charge the US under the current rules.
            I just don’t think the province of Alberta has any authority to actually challenge the trade laws as they exist.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            The “buying at the reduced rate” goes back to WWII, if I’m not mistaken.

            But I don’t know enough about that to carry on an intelligent discussion since the UK today is still bound by the Lend/Lease agreement made during WWII. Germany and Japan are still occupied by US forces. That must cost a pretty penny.

            My understanding is that even with the XL-pipeline, shipment by way of railroad tank cars has not decreased across the US.

            There was a time when unused railroad tank cars were parked for miles and miles in the desert West of Deming, NM. Today there aren’t nearly as many.

            I always thought that actual oil prices were set at the Exchanges by way of Futures’ forecasts, so there would be no need for Alberta to challenge the trade laws since it is “whatever the market will bear.”

            I could be wrong but that is MY understanding.

        • 0 avatar
          Add Lightness

          nemosdad:
          So how do you factor in the fact that TMX will allow the environmentally dirtiest oil in the world to expand the tarsands production?
          (the tarsands were rebranded oilsands some time ago to improve their reputation)

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    States rights matter! Damn big government telling the states what to do.

    Wait, California wants it?

    Federal government tell them what to do!

    Basically just about everyone who has skin in this game, oil companies, car makers, the people that make the cars, multiple state governments are saying just standardize on CARB because – wait for it – basically that is what the rest of the world is doing and it will make it easier, cheaper, and more scalable for all of us if you just standardize.

    Oh no! They are defying dear leader! Death to America! Errr, California, errrr Kalifornia, errrr just the blue parts of Kalifornia komrade.

  • avatar
    Lockstops

    I thought having any contact whatsoever with foreign governments is high treason. At least that’s what the Democratic party and the media keeps telling me.

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    Canada, a country whose wishes are just as irrelevant as California when dealing with US Federal law.

    I maintain let California do what they want. Automakers will either make all cars meet the standards or Californians will whine to high-heaven when their new-car selection consists of a Prius and a Tesla.

    OR….. federal government makes a law (good or bad is up for debate)….but California and everyone else MUST follow it. This opting out of federal laws you don’t like is getting out of control and needs to stop.

  • avatar
    civicjohn

    Poor Justin Trudeau, his dad’s love child and graduate of McGill. That has to hurt.

    The plastic straw deal didn’t work as well as expected, so why not hitch your wagon to Newsome?

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    I see the biggest problem being that there has not been a major oil refinery built in the US since the 1970s. Having plenty of oil doesn’t help unless you have the refinery capacity. Yes, I realize that environmental regulation has been a hindrance to building and expanding refinery capacity but also that many refineries have either been sold off or shut down by the major oil companies who in the past would make less on the refining end because of the profits from selling gasoline in large volumes. Oil companies have to make profits on all their operations and they have to answer to their board. True more refined products can be imported but losing refining capacity such as the permanent shutdown in Philadelphia of a aging refinery with no replacement is going to affect supply and thus affect price.

    Even if refinery capacity were expanded the oil industry will decrease the amount of refined product hits the market to maintain a certain price and if the public uses less gasoline and diesel then the oil industry will produce and refine less oil. Also the gasoline and diesel used will bring in less tax revenue for the Feds and the States which in turn means less road and bridge repairs. Unless the taxes are changed to include tax revenue from electric vehicles such as a system that taxes how many miles that are driven then where do you get the revenue from. If more people transition to electric vehicles and more drive fuel efficient vehicles then there will be a lot less money to build and repair roads and bridges. There will be some major changes in the future on how roads and bridges will be funded.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      “I see the biggest problem being that there has not been a major oil refinery built in the US since the 1970s.”

      A lot of ready-made gasoline, diesel and jetfuel comes across the Southern border from PEMEX in underground pipes and then pushed across the US of A to distributing locations nationwide.

      One such complex is the Refinery Complex at El Paso, TX.

      With the Refinery in the East closing due to the latest fire they had, no one has hit the panic button or rang the alarm bell signalling a shortage of refineries in the US.

      If they actually built more refineries, each refinery would realize less profit and the price at the pump would be a lot lower because of oversupply.

      It’s a game, and the consumer is being extorted by Big Oil AND the US gov’t.

      Been that way since 1973.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        @hdc, I stay at that Embassy Suites on Gateway right by that facility every time I travel to Bliss (like 2 months and counting there this year).

        I wake up every morning hacking like I smoked 2 packs of Marlboro Reds in my sleep.

        But you get free booze at the Embassy and I’m a sucker for free bottom shelf bourbon.

        Seriously though, that alone makes me think an electric future might not be so bad, provided we clean up the nastiness of battery production and disposal.

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          I’ve been told the Marriott/Residence Inn at/near the Airport is actually a pretty good place to stay. (Airport Road/Montana)

          A lot of people do not like their pricing but staying on the Southside of El Paso just brings on a lot of breathing grief, and not all from the refining aspects.

          By that I mean, with the winds just right, all the pollution from Juarez blows across the border. In Juarez they burn old tires, used oil, plastics, etc to generate power.

          And I never understood why the El Paso City fathers never planned for accommodations on the North Side, like in the area of where Fred Wilson and Dyer cross. Or near the Beaumont/VA Hosp complex.

          Lots of people stay there for business of medical reasons, often for more than one night.

          For military there is plenty of accommodations On-Base, but for others not so much.

          I recommended to friends who asked for advise to stay on the West side of El Paso, on I-10, like Holiday Inn Express, and the like. They often offer free breakfast.

          But then if they are traveling, they still have to fight the traffic on I-10 in the spaghetti bowl on interchange with US54.

          In the past, before my daughter moved to El Paso, if my wife had a doctor’s appointment at Beaumont or me at the VA, we stayed On-Base at Fort Bliss.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Refining is a nasty business. I stay be a refinery every time I travel to Fort Bliss (El Paso). I sure as heck wouldn’t want one built in my neighborhood.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Exactly no one wants a refinery built in their own backyard.

    highdesertcat–that was one of my points. Back in the 50’s, 60’s, and early 70’s oil companies were willing to make less money on the refinery end and make profits by selling gasoline at a relatively cheap price making and profit on volume. Oil companies finally saw making more money on less volume by raising the price meant that they did not have to expand their capacity. My point is that with more efficient vehicles and the move to more electric vehicles means there is less tax revenue for roads and bridges. If we do get ICE vehicles that get 54 mpg we will pay just as much overall for gas and diesel because less oil will be produced and refined and the price of refined product will rise to adjust for less demand. An increase in oil supply will only temporarily affect the price of refined product.

    Since you mentioned 1973 during the Arab Oil Embargo there were oil tankers sitting outside of ports not being unloaded. If eventually electric vehicles become the dominant vehicles then the oil companies will transition to providing charging for these vehicles and/or go into other types of energy.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Jeff S, I believe that there is room for EVs in the mix, for those people who actually want to buy them. I’m not one of them.

      For me, I’m old school. My main ride has got to run on gasoline.

      I am fervently against my gov’t, the US gov’t, telling me what I can or cannot drive, what I should drive, or manipulating the market behind the scenes by imposing emissions and fuel economy mandates forcing buyers to comply.

      And from MY perspective that is what I see happening when CA wants to push through these mandates for nationwide adoption.

      So we need to see how this all comes off, and then people like me can decide best which vehicle they will rush out to buy to stave off the impending implementation of the new standards.

      I’m pretty sure my last vehicle will be another gas-guzzling pickup truck, if I ever need to buy another vehicle.

      As far as Canada is concerned, they have sovereignty, and do what they want. If my brother-in-law doesn’t like it, he can always move to Poulsbo or Des Moines, WA, where my sister has her rentals.

  • avatar
    PandaBear

    Why do you guys care what CANADA does? I though you are all into states right? not WORLD listening to you right?

  • avatar
    nemosdad

    Canada has been in lockstep with California since at least ’69 on emissions.
    My ’69 chev 396 had an air pump (smog pump) and it was built at the Oshawa Ontario facility to Califonia specs.
    There is nothing really new here, regardless of the government.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Another country heard from… literally.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @highdesert–I probably will not own an EV. I don’t see Canada as a concern so they can follow whatever standards they want. The only thing I would add to this discussion is that the more standards vary on pollution, efficiency, and safety the more expensive it is for manufacturers to comply with the standards and these costs are passed onto the consumer. I like you will wait to see what standards will be agreed upon otherwise I will just continue to drive what I have. I am not going to panic and buy in anticipation of any impending standards. I don’t drive enough now to worry about mpgs but I will most likely buy a vehicle that is in between a gas sipper and a gas guzzler because that seems to be the type of vehicle that best meets all of my needs. A compact or midsize crossover meets most of my needs. My next vehicle will most likely be my last one.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Jeff S, I know a few guys who actually bought a Volt. My brother used to have a Leaf. I cannot see ME ever buying one. Borrowing? Maybe.

      My brother sold his Leaf to a Golf Course owner in Huntsville, AL. And the guys who actually bought the Volts, rarely, if ever use them.

      Seriously!

      These guys own at least one pickup truck, a sedan, CUV or SUV for Mama, and often an ATV or small motocrosser, just for fun.

      In fact, that’s where I got my guidance and advice when I bought that Honda CRF450L “Thumper” to hang on the back of our (now defunct) motorhome.

      You know, if real-world buyers REALLY wanted EVs, they wouldn’t be able to satisfy the demand and have to go to China to import them.

      The percentage of EV actually in use is negligible in a SAAR of 17mil cars sold every year, even if forecast to be declining in future years. Well, declining if President Trump does not get re-elected.

      That can happen, you know.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “Meanwhile, California has set aside $238 million of its 2019 budget for incentives for the purchase of electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles”

    Gavin is long TSLA.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @highdesert–I don’t see EVs being dominate in the market place for a long time. What needs to happen are batteries that are less expensive, smaller, lighter,longer range, and faster to charge. Also there needs to be more infrastructure to support EVs. Those are reasons why I would not buy an EV. What I do like about EVs are they are simpler, quiet, and except for the batteries they require less maintenance. I believe you should be able to buy and drive the vehicle of your choice. If you want a full size V8 powered pickup then buy one and drive it.

    I am not opposed to ICE or EVs but I do believe that everything has its time and that is true for ICE vehicles but I don’t see them disappearing anytime soon and in the meantime I am going to own a vehicle that best meets my needs. As of now and the foreseeable future I cannot see buying an EV. I have bought rechargeable lawn equipment in the past and I have not been satisfied because I need more than a 30 minute run time and I have bought extra batteries to get a longer run time and they don’t last and yes these were lithium batteries. Maybe if I had a much smaller yard with less landscaping they would work for me but if that were the case I would just buy all electric with no battery. Those are the reasons I would not buy an EV because of having a long charge time and little range with expensive batteries that do not last. If technology changes and batteries become better and less expensive with less charge time then I might consider an EV. In the meantime I don’t want to be forced to buy a EV vehicle.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @highdesertcat–You said your motorhome is now defunct, did it stop running or did you just stop using it? Just curious.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Jeff S, I seized the engine when a headgasket blew. Cracked the waterjacket on the #3 cylinder .5mm lengthwise. A cloud of steam surrounded us.

      Happened the morning of 2 June, on US70, while on our way to Las Cruces, NM. Stopped the engine from ~2600 rpm to dead stop in 1 sec or less. Terrible sound!

      I’m using my old 2011 Tundra, the one I sold to my oldest son in 2016, and my wife is using our daughter’s 2013 Odyssey while she is on a 6-week Caribbean cruise with her (married) boyfriend (with benefits).

      My brothers and I decided that it wasn’t worth putting money into a 1974 Fleetwood Southwind, so I parted out all the stuff inside. The remaining shell was sold for scrap at a local recycler, and they came and hauled it off!

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    It would leave automakers with the choice of quit, comply or pay the fine. Why would they take either of the first two when CAFE fines are so small, relative to the price of offending cars and trucks?

    So nothing will change, except what governments take in as revenue or profit sharing. Don’t fool yourself, that’s what this is all about. Billions upon billions of dollars collected annually, no investment, just rake it in. Not cleaner air.

    Why are we not hearing about the fines increasing enough to curb behavior. It’s not 1973 anymore, when the fines actually meant something. But try getting a speeding ticket in California. Oh boy.

  • avatar
    RedRocket

    This really shouldn’t be a surprise. Canada’s current federal govt is very close to the loony California govt mindset that think more govt involvement in everything is a good thing. No politically-correct movement or meaningless apology to a supposedly aggrieved group is too much for them. Thankfully there is an election coming up in October and polls say that Junior Trudeau and his fellow “progressives” will be shown the door. It cannot happen soon enough.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @highdesertcat–Many times the best decision is to scrap. Does sound like you got a lot of use out of your motor home. I still have my 99 S-10 but it only has 119k miles which I will give to my nephew when I am finished with it. Never thought I would keep a vehicle 20 years but I don’t drive as much as I use to and it has been very reliable.

    Here’s some links to the 2007 million mile Tundra if you haven’t already seen them

    http://www.trucktrend.com/how-to/project-trucks/1705-million-mile-tundra-the-tear-down/

    https://www.thedrive.com/news/27730/second-toyota-tundra-pickup-hits-a-million-miles-serviced-at-same-dealer-as-the-first

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Jeff S, that’s what we decided as well, better to scrap. My dad bought it new in 1974, got some use out of it until my mom died of cancer, and after my dad died my brothers and I used it, improved it, and nurtured it until it could be nurtured no more. I felt bad because it happened on MY watch, especially after ALL the work my brother’s step-son in Scottsdale had done to the exterior, paint job, chrome highlights, additional lighting, etc..

      And speaking of your S10, my BFF kept his S10 Tahoe Ext Cab 2WD for 27 years until the transmission had only ONE speed forward (2nd gear) and reverse.

      So now he’s looking to buy his last pickup truck of his driving life, and had invited me to go with him to look at the various offering out there, and to be of counsel in his decision-making.

      I warned him I was very much Pro-Tundra, and why, and he knows that because he has borrowed my Tundras plenty of times in the past. His wife prefers the 2019 Silverado LT/RST/LTZ but our local GM dealer just needs too much money for them.

      He and I will be going to Bravo in Las Cruces whenever we can get together. After that, Mission in El Paso, and ultimately we’ll go to Galles in Albuquerque if we need to. My BFF really does want to buy something his wife likes, and he doesn’t care what he drives, as long as it is new, has a factory warranty, has four doors, Power driver seat, Trailer Package with Hitch and is in Silver Ice Metallic. He and I can mount the Side Steps/Running Boards.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @highdesertcat–You definitely got your and your father’s moneys worth out of that motor home. I do understand the sentiment in keeping it–I had my mother’s 84 5th Avenue for years but after 200k miles the electric windows were going along with the electrical system and the engine need an overhaul. The car itself still looked like new. It does sound like you friend needs a new vehicle and he got his money’s worth out of that S-10. I understand pleasing the wife–“happy wife, happy life.” I myself don’t care much for the new Silverado even though I have owned GM products for years and the Tundra is a long lasting and hard to kill truck. If you looked at those links I posted about the 1 million mile Tundra that truck did not look like it had a million miles and it was far from being babied.

    My wife wants my neighbors 2012 Lacrosse which has 40k miles and has been well maintained (still looks brand new). The neighbor has been looking at Subaru Foresters and is about to pull the trigger but wants the Buick to go since he has 2 other vehicles. I asked for first dibs on the Lacrosse and if I get it I will give my S-10 to my nephew who is retired from the Coast Guard and wants it because it has a manual and he likes it (I more than got my money out of that S-10 and it still runs and looks like new). My nephew has a 2014 Cummins Ram Laramie dully which still looks like new. I still have regrets in selling my grandfathers 63 IH 1,000 step side pickup which I later found out my nephew wanted and he is now trying to locate to buy. I should have kept the IH and given it to him since it was all original and only 58k miles (still ran and looked good). Would have been good to keep it in the family since he now has a home on the family farm and space to keep it and the S-10.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Daniel J: Art, as someone who lives in the area and works in Huntsville, I agree. Birmingham loves to point out how...
  • iNeon: Just here to disavow TTAC/Vertical Scope’s poor policing of the mob. You’ve suggested murder as a solution to...
  • -Nate: Sad but true ~ I worked in dealers and was appalled at how little they actually cared about ever doing the...
  • Vanillasludge: Total cost of ownership includes resale value and these will have it in spades. My 19 Mustang GT will...
  • Vanillasludge: They’ll need to be flushable, as the fear will have substance.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States