By on May 28, 2020

Following America’s fueling feud has shown your author that it’s less about finding a reasonable compromise that works for consumers, the automotive industry, and environmental activists, and more about perpetuating ideological wars that now seem to surround every topic filtered through the news media.

Encouraged by industry leaders just days after taking office, President Donald Trump made the fuel economy rollback one of his first initiatives. It wasn’t until March that the softened final draft emerged, however, and it won’t be enough to conclude the almost four-year battle. A collection of 23 states filed suit against the Trump administration’s easing of emissions standards on Wednesday. They argue that the rollback is illegal and based on bunk information.

While we’ve also been suspect of some of the metrics used to make the rollback look more desirable, fueling standards haven’t adhered to reality in some time. The Obama-era standards that would have seen Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rise to 54 mpg by 2025 were deemed unsustainable by that administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), but were put into play anyway. 

The Trump administration has harped upon this throughout, repeatedly stating that automakers would have extreme difficulty meeting their targets. U.S. customers also have a preference for larger automobiles, placing some efficiency mandates at odds with market realities. Initially, the current administration claimed a rollback would lower the price of new cars dramatically, helping spur the economy. It then started baking-in safety and job claims as ammunition against opponents that we found questionable.

Meanwhile, automakers turned tail and ran from the issue or sided with environmentalists. No corporation in today’s world (with the possible exception of the Dodge division) would openly admit to having an interest in something that might negatively impact the environment, so we faced a constant stream of press releases about manufacturers’ commitment to Mother Earth and a gaggle siding with California in its voluntary fueling agreement.

That left us with a federal government that was largely fixated on the economy and numerous state governments that saw environmental regulation as the only thing that mattered. The industry attempted to play both sides, understanding that there was little to be gained by taking too strong of a stance and keenly aware that global emission rules may make any changes in the United States somewhat pointless. But Trump is a deregulation kind of guy and the fight has to reach its conclusion, lest three years of effort be wasted.

We knew lawsuits were coming, with some already in progress. This year, Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) repeatedly petitioned the EPA’s Inspector General to look into the metrics used to rationalized the rollback. California regulators have likewise said they would use every tool at their disposal to keep the state from having to adhere to updated national standards since day one of the gas war. In the interim, California rallied like-minded states, and they are the ones that are now suing the Trump administration.

According to The Wall Street Journal, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra believes one of the core tenants of the rollback isn’t all it’s cracked up to be — suggesting it will ultimately hurt employment rates by discouraging future green-tech jobs and will be a black eye for air quality. “It will increase costs to consumers and allow the emission of dangerous pollutants that directly threaten the health of our families,” he said.

While a state that currently has overwhelming problems with substance abuse, homelessness, and human feces crowding urban sidewalks likely has bigger public health concerns than a fuel rollback that still compromised enough to raise annual auto efficiencies by 1.5 percent per year, Becerra and company aren’t actually leading with the environmental stuff in the lawsuit.

From WSJ:

The states argue in their suit that the Trump administration relied on an error-prone analysis that included omissions to justify the rule change, particularly in asserting that the changes would save consumers money over time, according to some of the attorneys general involved. The suit also argues that the rule violates federal requirements to reduce air pollution and increase vehicle efficiency, they said.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the trade group representing the industry in Washington, hasn’t yet seen the lawsuit but will review it, a spokesman said.

Honestly, we don’t know how either side can confidently claim the ability to predict future vehicle pricing. While higher standards could force additional electrification that would probably increase MSRPs, automakers could seek to meet efficiency targets through the sale of lightweight cars using small, cheap internal combustion motors. Some claim that EVs will help offset their higher purchase price via fuel savings, but this first requires one puts a lot of miles beneath their wheels.

That doesn’t assure the current administration a victory. Despite being prone to deregulation, it has lost a disproportionate number of regulatory cases compared to previous administrations. This could be the result of Trump and company being extra eager to undo restrictive rules and taking more action overall, though some claim irrational anger toward the president has influenced judges’ decisions. Of course, there is also evidence to suggest federal regulators haven’t always done their due diligence before taking action.

Who should you trust when it comes to the fuel rollback? Probably no one.

Both sides seem to have decided, even from before the outset, that the end justifies the means. While the Trump administration has been more willing to compromise, we think the EPA went overboard in trying to justify the rollback. Meanwhile, states opposing it have shown themselves unwilling to have it any way but theirs and will weep for the environment while ignoring the economy and consumer choice. Everyone’s playing dirty, cherry-picking data in service of their preferred cause.

At least you get to make up your own mind on this one.

[Image: Marc Bruxelle/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

197 Comments on “Gas War: States Sue Trump Administration Over Fuel Rollback...”


  • avatar
    MiataReallyIsTheAnswer

    It should be a free market, MFRs free to produce whatever they want, and consumers free to buy whatever they want. There will be people buying 100 MPG hybrids and there will be people buying 12 MPG trucks. Whatever doesn’t sell, they will stop making. Pretty simple.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Agreed on the individual market side, but that’s pretty much today’s system.

      The question surrounds the socialization of pollution – your 12 mpg truck affects my breathing and ruins the road I drive on. So shame on you, and I’ll get my state legislators to enact state-wide guidelines that make buying such a vehicle more difficult for the buyer and the mfr.

      On one hand, you *want* your local elected officials to look out for local interests. On the other hand, we don’t want our elected officials making choices *for* us.

      • 0 avatar
        redapple

        Just raise the gas tax dammit. Adjusted for inflation gas is NOW 0.25 $ / Gallon.

        This promotes WASTE! PIG up trucks everywhere!!!

        Come on man.

        • 0 avatar
          TrailerTrash

          wait…what?
          you want to give the government more money?
          giving the government more penalty tax money is your way of fixing this?
          oh, come on, give us a break!

          • 0 avatar
            Peter Gazis

            TrailerTrash

            Yes, use the money to repair our roads, and pay down the massive debt run up by Trump.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Fine. Do it so long as income taxes are cut by a consumate amount. This will be a net win for revenue since many leeches that get refunds amounting to more than what they pay via various “credits” would have to pony up now for taxes and get some skin in the game.

          I pay enough though already.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        You guys are missing the point with the whole truck debate – the goal shouldn’t be to punish people for driving trucks that are gas pigs and pollute disproportionately (and, yes, trucks are guilty on both counts), or to buy them to flip the middle finger at people who think trucks are irresponsible. The goal should be to introduce technology that allows people to have what they want, and do it responsibly.

        Ergo: electric or electrified trucks.

        Instead of working each other, work the problem.

    • 0 avatar

      Free market only will delay long due switch to renewables and EVs. I would suggest to introduce gas tax high enough to make driving gas powered vehicles prohibitive. Not, I am not crazy, that is what the rest of the developed world does. We can find a better use of oil than just burning it like primitive stone age tribe.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        Precisely how high would you raise the price? Because at $4-5/gallon, the F-150 was still the best-selling vehicle. Maybe try for $8-10/gallon, then welcome the armed revolt.

        The ‘rest of the developed world’ drives what they do because:
        1. Driving distances are much shorter; no Great Plains to cross.
        2. Per-capita income is generally lower, and income tax rates are higher.
        3. Socialist governments force the fuel prices to be higher.
        4. Most countries are fuel importers, rather than producers and refiners of it.
        5. Urban living forces one to have a smaller vehicle.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          I agree with ace to Aux. If you are going to raise my fuel costs to 8-10 dollars a gallon, I expect a mass transit system akin to the Paris Metro. Yes, that will be difficult given how American cities are built, but if you aren’t up to doing the job we the taxpayers pay you to do, feel free to step down and go sell jeans at The Gap.

          Furthermore, this will slow battery development. I keep reading EVs are soooo close to making ICE obselete. Do you think that innovation continues under those market conditions or do we further distort a distorted market.

          If the EV believers have the courage of their convictions, why manipulate the free market? Why not just let the “superior product” take over here in the short time frames often quoted on this very site? Or are they full of it?

          We subsidized EVs already to give them their running start. Time to put up or shut up.

          • 0 avatar

            If EVs become mainstream prices will plunge and better batteries will be invented because of free market.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            “better batteries will be invented because of free market.”

            …and because practically every object in our lives needs a battery. We’re becoming a battery-based society. The military is also driving battery development. That’s the big elephant in the room that no one sees.

            “If the EV believers have the courage of their convictions, why manipulate the free market? ”

            I totally agree. I follow battery development and they’re making suprising fast incremental progress. It takes years to get from lab demo to mass production, so it’s sort-of easy to get an idea as to what is going to be hitting the market in a few years.

            I think the ultimate free-marking driving force behind EVs in the end isn’t something anyone is expecting. It will ultimately be an image thing. An ICE will become a symbol of being old and a few other stereotypes. Image is everything to a lot of people. That’s at least 5 years away, but I think that is what ultimately will change the industry.

            The other factor that will come into play is that as EVs start gaining market share, gasoline availability will become more of an issue. The gas station with working pumps today may be dry tomorrow with a paper sign saying “sorry”. When people have to start worrying about getting gas, they’ll switch sooner. Again, a free-market thing since a gas station owner might decide that getting new tanks or pumps isn’t worth the money and those pumps are keeping out higher revenue “charging” customers.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            agree @mcs. When people let the system work, it tends to work. I think the market will eventually choose EV’s, though I am less bullish on the timeline.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Agreed, Art, and I think trucks and big SUVs are actually *perfect* vehicles to electrify. Truck and SUV buyers love torque, and nothing provides that better than an electric motor. Battery packaging should be far easier with a vehicle that’s tall, weighs 6,000 pounds, and is as long as an old-school Fleetwood Brougham.

            Plus, with fewer mechanical parts to go wrong, fleets might love them. There’s a reason why Amazon is developing electrified delivery vehicles.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Substitute “fuel economy” with “abortion” or “gun control”, and it becomes clear this really isn’t about cars; it’s a Constitutional question about states’ rights.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      We have a winner. We have a “president” hell bent on expanding the power of the Executive branch.

      • 0 avatar

        I am old enough to remember that Obama was one who started to wildly use and misuse the executive power.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          Without examples your comment is meaningless, but Trump is president, would you like to talk about his misuse of power?

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            This particular mess was at least contributed to by Obama. He moved up all of the review dates on his standards because he didn’t like who won the election which I felt was a bit odd given all of his “Elections have consequences” rhetoric.

            If he didn’t like Trump’s direction on this he should work hard to get a Democrat to replace Trump. I don’t like this sort of thing from either side as I believe our system works pretty well. The problem with executive orders is they can be done away with which is why they were never intended to replace the legislative process. I get it, Obama had a hostile Congress. Welcome to your representative republic. Go get like minded folks elected and enshrine things in law or don’t be mad when the next guy undoes it all. I predict the names in this argument will flip this time next year when it is Trump’s EOs being unwound. Yes, Presidents have a phone and pen, but so does the next one.

          • 0 avatar
            Duaney

            Plenty of examples, having IRS target conservative groups,spying on Trump illegally, going after political enemies like D Souza and D Prager. framing General Flynn, lying about Obamacare, and on and on

        • 0 avatar
          ttacgreg

          Me too. It was a response to a totally obstructionist GOP Congress.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Yeah…that whole peaky republic bit can sometimes get in the way. All elections have consequences, be they in Congress, the White House, or your local board of education. Don’t like how the party in Congress is acting? Run candidates that those people will support and elect. This isn’t China.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            It’s so simple, huh Art?

            ger·ry·man·der
            /ˈjerēˌmandər/

            verb
            gerund or present participle: gerrymandering

            manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.
            achieve (a result) by manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency.
            “a total freedom to gerrymander the results they want”

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Both sides Gerrymander. And if it is such a massive issue, how do you explain the current situation? The Senate is far less vulnerable to having it’s outcome shifted via Gerrymandering yet it remains Republican while the House which is highly vulnerable to it has a Democrat majority.

            It just pains some folks that our system, by in large, works as those that designed it intended. It is not supposed to be efficient. Dictatorships are efficient.

    • 0 avatar
      Old_WRX

      Yeah, it’s become kinda painfully obvious that this whole fuel economy/’lectric car brouhaha is (or at least has become) about nothing other than big business (stuffed pockets must get more stuffed). The pretense that it is about the environment (global warming/climate change) has warn extremely thin.

      I remember when they said on the weather channel that: all scientists agree (’bout global change climate warming greenhouse gasps). Since this is as likely as all [redacted] agreeing that Chevy is the better pickup…

      To paraphrase Lenny Bruce: Are there any liberals/conservatives in the house tonight?…

  • avatar
    Duaney

    There two separate issues. Emissions and MPG. I haven’t seen a “rollback” on any emissions standards proposed. Trump’s EPA has proposed a rollback on the planned by the Obama EPA of dramatically increased MPG standards. I’ve believed that the Obama MPG standards would be very difficult to achieve and could result in negative results. Such as featherweight expensive cars that consumer’s wouldn’t buy anyway. We have pretty clean air and good MPG of vehicles right now, as compared to long ago. I think the marketplace should determine MPG of vehicles, if manufacturer’s offer vehicles with very good MPG then consumer’s will buy what they want. We have plenty of competition from European and Japanese makes. With a competitive marketplace manufacturer’s will work for better efficiency on their own, and not need the heavy hand of government.

  • avatar
    Imagefont

    It’s not about choice and mpg vs emissions, it’s about meeting air quality goals and focusing on auto emissions to achieve those goals.
    Do it like Europe does, or at least used to do, and tax aspects of the car itself. Gross vehicle weight, engine size, emissions, mpg, etc. Channel consumer behavior buy taxing what you don’t like. But taxes aren’t popular, with me either, but it’s an effective tool. London taxes vehicles that enter the inner city as a way of reducing traffic and everything that traffic brings. That’s an indirect way of changing people’s behavior.
    Want people to conserve a resource like water? Charge a lot more. Want people to drive less or drive more efficient cars? Tax the hell out of gas and tax the hell out of larger vehicles on a tiered scale. I’m not saying I like the idea, but it would be effective.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      What do air quality goals have to do with modern emission controlled vehicles? A 12MPG truck off a new vehicle lot is producing the same harmless non polluting exhaust as a 37MPG car on the new car lot.

      The case can be made that direct injection high compression engines are producing NOx emissions not found on normal gas engines, but ironically more small cars are using that tech than trucks on the road today.

      Ironically, again, the proliferation of direct injection and high compression engines is a direct result of government intervention into the car market.

    • 0 avatar
      Duaney

      Punitive taxes are why Europe could never match the great economy of America. They were forced to drive dinky cheap cars, live modest lives, had limited opportunity. Talk to the English about how lousy their country is because of high taxes.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    22 states suddenly jump on the bandwagon? How many of them don’t even require “Smog Checks” and are sanctuary states for gross polluters from CA mostly? Or they’re only required for one or two cities, if they do.

    Oh yeah, there’s billions to be made annually from fines the automakers would be responsible for.

    Clearly the potential rules/fines aren’t intended to change buying habits one bit, only the amounts the states get to profit share at automakers expense.

    In other words, racketeering.

  • avatar
    jetcal

    The Obama-era standards that would have seen Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rise to 54 mpg by 2025…….

    were deemed unsustainable……..

    by that administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),

  • avatar
    bobbysirhan

    What an ideal time to not bail out the sanctuary states that obliterated their budgets by giving money to illegals, crushing small businesses, and driving out taxpayers.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      An even better idea would be for the most productive states to stop sending tax money to a federal government run by a dictator

      Cocktail time, little bobby, run along now

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        Lie he left office 3 years ago, get with the times. I realize in your Biden like state of mind you may have forgot given his administrations transgressions being in the news lately.

        • 0 avatar
          bobbysirhan

          Biden is a man of his people. His senile, rapist, child molesting in public, outspokenly racist people.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Oh, little bobby how soon you forget the sexual transgressions of President Tweety and the 13 year old girl who suddenly disappeared

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Ahh we get some nice conspiracy theories thrown in. Fortunately the internet is brimming with Biden’s sexual perversions; a 77 year old man french kissing their granddaughters is permanent on the Internet.

          • 0 avatar
            Imagefont

            Bobbysirhan
            You’re talking about Trump again, right?

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            If only their were options, be they from within the 2 parties or another option that weren’t rapists. Oh look, there are. Who Knew?

            Or just keep accepting the same BS. Your Choice.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          You’re losing it, Hummer, Cheetolini will go down as the worst president in American history, he has done nothing for this country and has only lied to it’s citizens

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Example?

            He has done a stellar job for me and my family, and will continue to for the next 5 years.

            All you seem to have is petty name calling.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            As mentioned Biden is a man of his people, cream of the crop, the best person to lead our country from his basement. Sure, you can’t leave him alone (and I don’t just mean around little kids) but he’s got the mental capacity of a kindergartener, I mean politician, I mean, wait yea…

            Forgive me if I laugh at your politics, it’s not easy to keep a straight face when you support the man that’s supposably anything but the epitome of the problems we face in this nation, albeit with a senile dementia ridden twist.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            At least Biden can read

          • 0 avatar
            bobbysirhan

            I’ve seen Biden molesting his grand daughter while the camera rolled. I’ve seen Biden being racist while the camera rolled. I’ve seen Biden and Hillary triumphantly criminalizing being a black man in the US while the cameras rolled. You’ve got lying socialists accusing Trump because socialists will kill to serve evil. Lying for them is like overstaying a parking meter for a bank robber. It’s what they do. It’s who you are. Did you read ‘Rules for Radicals,’ or just sell your soul to the devil?

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            “ At least Biden can read”

            Yea I saw his interview Monday where he yelled at the people behind the scenes to get his teleprompter working.

            I guess he does have one good attribute?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Bobby Kennedy

            You forgot to include, “I’ve seen Moscow’s finest prostitutes urinate while Trump watched *while the camera rolled”.

            Keep up the good work “Bobby”.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Tsk, tsk, little bobby plastered again

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        States don’t pay income taxes… individuals in states pay income taxes. As a productive individual that pays a metric butt ton of taxes, I’m down with not but I fail to see what my state of residence has to do with it…or will some blue stater be sending me a chunk back since I am in a supposed “taker” state.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        Here comes “dictator” talk. I actually think, Pinochet wouldn’t be a bad thing here to thin out leftism a bit.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Pinochet would be a good thing? Stop food shipments? Who the f**k is this guy – Stalin’s great grandkid or something?

          Seriously, TTAC…PLEASE give us an ignore button. If dingbats like this are ignored, they’ll just go away.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            FreedMike,

            wait a minute. Pinochet was American stooge. We wanted him for Chileans. Why not for ourselves?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Ah, so…if we support a country, we should emulate it. Get ready for Sharia Law, Saudi Arabia style.

            Seriously…ignore button, please, TTAC.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            See Mike,

            you just proved your ignorance on this issue. So, you support a country with a bad dictatorship but you don’t want it here. Although, in case of Pinochet, it wasn’t just a support. It was installation and support. Like software, you know.
            But the reason we installed Pinochet was Chilean Bernie – Luis Corvalan. So, if we get Bernie here or even Biden, we need our Pinochet. This is US logic, not mine. I just follow the US trends.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I see, so because we supported Pinochet, we ARE Pinochet.

            By the same logic: we support Japan, so we ARE Japan. We support Canada, so we ARE Canada. We support Turkey, so we ARE Turkey. And so on…

            Okey dokey…

            And please don’t lecture anyone on the immorality of supporting immoral regimes when you are all for a little Pinochet and “let’s cut off food supplies to states I don’t like.”

            Seriously, TTAC…ignore button, please. I feel like I’m losing a tenth of an IQ point every time I use mental energy responding to nonsense like this.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            Besides, Mike

            referring to your comment below, you don’t understand what Biden did in Ukraine.

            In Ukraine, he installed his son into board of corrupt energy company. The initial intent might was good. We give Ukraine money, little Biden looks after what is going on with local oligarchs and report to the big Joe.

            But somewhere along the way, little Biden and his partner, and also another little step son on John Kerry (I forgot his name) did a little bit of money laundering. The company was investigated for something else but Lithuania noticed some abnormal transactions and reported it back to Ukraine. The company CEO ran away and hid. Now, this money laundering was in a full view of Ukraine AG Victor Shokhin. And big Joe went to the rescue of his little boy and exchanged 1 billion of US taxpayer money for 1. firing of Shokhin and 2. Stopping of the investigation.

            And this is just Biden’s personal case. There is also a green light that Biden gave unelected so-called president Turchinov to send gangs of criminals and SS Nazi supporters to the rebelling region and kill thousands of civilians. So, Biden (and O’bama) are butchers of Ukraine.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            “I see, so because we supported Pinochet, we ARE Pinochet. ”

            No. This is not the logic.
            The logic is, if we’re ok with Pinochet in Chile, we should be ok with Pinochet in US. Why are we better than Chile? Or worse.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        “An even better idea would be for the most productive states to stop sending tax money to a federal government ”

        my “better idea” is to stop food shipments to your productive states. Because the reason they are so productive (and you mean they make more $$), they are sitting in their offices and somebody feeds them. When they need to go farm themselves, all their productivity will be gone. Then I will see how they will eat the stocks or microchips.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          So that is an interesting take on the concept of “productivity” when framed in the whole “5th largest world economy” that the California should leave the union types love to trumpet.

          When your productivity is wholly dependent on the favorable terms you receive on things like water and electricity for sure and maybe food (I don’t know…Agriculture is a big industry out there) are you really that productive?

          These we don’t need you attitudes among both sides are idiotic. It is a union and all parties benefit from being a part of it. Some likely do benefit more than others, but all benefit and both sides would miss the other dearly if they left. Federal dollars are one thing, but flipping a light switch and having the lights come on and having water come out of the faucet when you turn it on is also important.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      …What an ideal time to not bail out the sanctuary states that obliterated their budgets by giving money to illegals, crushing small businesses, and driving out taxpayers…

      Yes, those irresponsible, bad, sanctuary city-states, you know the ones that are “giver” states so the “taker”, non-sanctuary states can survive. This is such an easy lie to prove…you have to be a Russian bot. You can’t be that clueless, you just can’t.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        Yep, those rich blue states that keep the country afloat

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          So based on my 30 seconds of googling, this red state resident paid more in income taxes than roughly 75 percent of people earned in income last year. So what were you prattling on about blue staters keeping me afloat? I’ll just leave it at You’re Welcome.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            God, I wish I knew what you were talking about. Sometimes I think you’re making good points, but damn, Art, it’s hard to tell what points you’re making. Are you saying YOU’RE obscenely rich? Well good for you, but your state is one of the poorest and contributes little to the country as a whole, but I’m happy YOU’RE rich

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Blue state types love to trumpet the whole “taker state bit”. I’m pointing out there is no such thing. Taxes are paid by individuals. Some states have lots of individuals that pay alot of taxes. Some have individuals that get alot of benefits.

            I don’t care about what your state as whole does nor mine. It is not relevant. It is just idiotic when people who are very likely paying far less taxes then I do (that’s statistics) try to lord over me that their state happens to have wealthy people in it that pay alot of taxes.

            If you are a red stater griping about blue staters spending your tax dollars and you don’t pay any, you as an individual are an idiot. If you are a blue stater that pays no taxes lording your states contributions over someone like me that pays a ton, you are equally an idiot.

            It is just a stupid argument either way because income taxes are an assessment on an individual’s income. States have nothing to do with it. Individuals are either producers or leeches. The state argument is meaningless and in my experience typically used by people that pay no taxes or very little to feel good about themselves and try to make others feel bad. Idiotic. Make good choices so you too can get the “privilege” of paying a bunch of taxes.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            @Art,

            because in blue states there are 45 million welfare “tax payers” that makes a nice average. Remember a woman in California explained that when she has 3 father-less children, she gets nearly $60K from the gov. and can stay home with them. So in CA, they make 3 children and never work

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      I think, now its time to build walls around cities.

  • avatar
    sgeffe

    Like moths to a flame…!

    Better make extra popcorn for this one!

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    Do you really want to go there Hummer?

    “Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl”

    https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

    “Trump outstrips Biden on sexual misconduct accusations”

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/01/2020-choice-trump-outstrips-biden-sexual-assault-accusations-column/3056601001/

    “The 25 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct”

    https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12

    “He has done a stellar job for me and my family, and will continue to for the next 5 years.”

    Example?

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      I seem to remember all those cases being thrown out, nice touch with the fake news sites, I especially like the gall of using snopes. A couple women, all huge democrat donors coming out of the woodwork to accuse rape is quite different than 25 years of being accused of rape as Biden has.

      Biden has physical evidence of his perversions, Trump has allegations from people with very strategic political links.

      Nice try though, I can’t imagine how hard it is trying to defend Biden. But I understand that he truly is the best the Democrats have to offer, he is after all a representation of the people that voted him into being the nominee. I was happy to see he was still alive here last weekend – months stuck in hiding makes one wonder…

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        You’re hopeless… USA Today? Business Insider? Yeah really out there, huh?

        Even the republicans can’t stand him

        “Search Results
        Top stories
        CNN.com
        .
        GOP operatives worry
        Trump will lose both
        the presidency and
        Senate majority
        .

        6 hours ago
        Washington Post
        .
        The Never Trumpers
        might finally be on to
        something
        .

        6 hours ago
        Newsweek
        .
        Anti-Trump Republican
        Group Launches $10
        Million Project to Get
        Biden Elected
        .

        5 hours ago
        CNN.com
        .
        New GOP group
        launches $10 million
        campaign to get
        Republicans to vote for Biden over Trump
        .

        7 hours ago
        Tampa Bay Times
        .
        Vote by mail helps
        Florida Republicans.
        So why is Trump
        bashing it?
        .

        11 hours ago
        FiveThirtyEight
        .
        The Voters Who Don’t
        Like Trump Or Biden
        .

        11 hours ago
        The New York Times
        .
        Get Republicans to
        Vote Against Trump?
        This Group Will Spend
        $10 Million to Try
        .

        13 hours ago
        FiveThirtyEight
        .
        How Much Trump
        Could Help (Or Harm)
        Down-Ballot
        Republicans In November
        .

        1 day ago
        Politico
        .
        ‘Why are you not
        burying him?’: Trump
        allies fret over rising
        Biden threat
        .

        1 day ago
        Politico
        .
        North Carolina throws
        convention threat back
        at Trump and GOP
        .

        Now, you were saying about what wonderful things Trump has done for you and your family…

        I’m still waiting

        • 0 avatar
          Hummer

          Yup, lots of fake news, Nevertrumpers equates to about 50 RINO establishment types that are swamp members.

          Again nice try, next you’ll tell me Hillary has a 97% chance of winning in 2016.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            You’re a fool, good luck to you

            You’re going to need it

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I don’t need luck, I have the greatest president in American history on my side, you have Biden and a dying far left media on your side.

            You can ignore the facts but they don’t disappear.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            ^^ I rest my case^^

            Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln just rolled-over in their graves

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            You can rest your case but none of the men you listed had to put up with anywhere near the backlash as Trump has, nor did any of them have such a high order of work needed to be done to fix a failing nation entrenched with corruption top to bottom.

            I doubt you would understand, you want a man with 40 years of experience letting our nation down with obvious dementia leading our country.

            I would say your judge of character is poor, but realistically your so far glued to your beliefs that nothing outside of a Nuremberg style trial would break your mental freeze.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Sooo…@Hummer, a bunch of states leaving the union over Lincoln’s election and starting the bloodiest war in our nation’s history and eventually taking a bullet to the back of the head over the matter some how is less backlash than people being mean to Trump? You may need some perspective.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I fail to see how that’s far fetched, Trump has had a coup against him, he was denied a smooth transition of power, he has the majority of the government against him, yet despite it all he always comes out on top. I think it’s a fair point with Lincoln comparing the actions of the Democratic Party then and now.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Hahahahahaha!

            Hummer, try and function without the FOX News propaganda. To compare Lincoln with Trump is beyond absurd. Did you not even take high school level history?

            OMG, you didn’t finish high school, did you?

            I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have brought it up

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Hummer, dude…if those things happened the system worked as he is still in power. Somebody literally took a pistol and murdered Lincoln. No, they are not on the same planet.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Lie2me – It is rather odd that the religious right overlooks King Chloroquine’s sexual adventures and fixate on Biden’s.

      It is all transactional, as long as the religious right gets judges, women put in their place, gays get shoved back in the closet (for reprogramming), and those of colour kept down or kept out, they will continue to ignore the rest of it.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        I know, Lou, the damage this man has caused will take years to undo. The freaks that support him will never come around. Let’s just hope they stay a minority

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        “ It is all transactional, as long as the religious right gets judges, women put in their place, gays get shoved back in the closet (for reprogramming), and those of colour kept down or kept out, they will continue to ignore the rest of it.”

        Some hilarious projection coming here, the first pro gay President in US history is anti-gay, the man that brought us prison reform to get unfairly convicted people of color out of prison due to Biden’s Crime Bill – with huge history of promoting minorities is racist, the man with women leading multiple parts of his administration is anti woman.

        I love it, the left is so desperate for anything against Trump no matter how untrue or ridiculous it may be. Everything you call Trump is precisely what Biden is seen saying. I LOVE it. You guys are so screwed in November. There’s only so much cognitive dissonance on the left that it’s more exciting than any Hollywood drama.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          “the left is so desperate for anything against Trump no matter how untrue or ridiculous it may be”

          This is true and ridiculous….

          “”So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous – whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light,” the president said, turning to Dr Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response co-ordinator, “and I think you said that hasn’t been checked but you’re going to test it.

          “And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting,” the president continued.

          “And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?

          “So it’d be interesting to check that.”

          Pointing to his head, Mr Trump went on: “I’m not a doctor. But I’m, like, a person that has a good you-know-what.”

          He turned again to Dr Birx and asked if she had ever heard of using “the heat and the light” to treat coronavirus.

          “Not as a treatment,” Dr Birx said. “I mean, certainly, fever is a good thing. When you have a fever, it helps your body respond. But I’ve not seen heat or light.”

          “I think it’s a great thing to look at,” Mr Trump said.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Well, Lou, since Trump is a compulsive liar and even though he said all those things they’re not true so we can’t hold them against him

            Hummer logic 101

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            “ tremendous – whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light,” the president said, turning to Dr Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response co-ordinator, “and I think you said that hasn’t been checked but you’re going to test it.

            “And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting,” the president continued.

            “And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?”

            I’m glad you mentioned that, both turned out to be actual medical advancements with significant promise, yet the left vilified Trump, and got very quiet when it turned out he was right… again.

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            I’ll leave this here since we both know your full of bologna, it’s not like any of this stuff was hard to find.

            AYTU bioscience has created a process where UV lights in the lungs helps destroy Wuhan virus

            Likewise Chlorine dioxide in appropriate quantities is a known disinfectant that can be administered to the body in different ways, I thought this was well known, apparently not.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @HUmmer – “whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light”
            “supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way”
            “AYTU bioscience has created a process where UV lights in the lungs helps destroy Wuhan virus”

            You do realize that the virus is systemic?
            What frequency of UV light?
            How does it get into the body?
            That is a form of radiation, if you don’t get the frequency right, it will kill healthy cells.
            Through the skin?
            You do realize that a “light” powerful enough to penetrate skin is a form of radiation and it will kill normal cells or cause cancer?

            They already use photons to treat cancer. Needs to be targeted very carefully. Systemically it will kill the patient.

            “Theoretically, it would be possible to snake a tube with a UV light into a person’s airway, but that would be a very bad idea. “That would be damaging to all the cells inside the body,” says Brenner. And in any case, the light wouldn’t reach all areas of the lungs. “The UV light can’t go around corners,” he says. “I don’t think you’d be killing all the viruses by any means.” Any remaining viruses would simply multiply, leaving the person still trying to fight off a Covid-19 infection—but now with potential cellular damage from the UV light.

            Brenner has been studying far-UVC, a wavelength that can kill viruses but can’t penetrate beyond the top layer of human skin, which is made up of dead cells. Brenner says that kind of light could be used to safely kill germs in the air, not just in hospitals, but in airports, transit stations, and other places where people gather. Still, he points out, the idea would be to use far-UVC for environmental surface decontamination, not internally to treat patients.”

            You obviously don’t know what Chlorine dioxide is. It isn’t going to cleanse a human being. The pulp mills in my town use it. Not the hospital… the pulp mills.

            What sort of right wing nutsopedia are you sourcing?

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        No Lou, there are those of us that look at both choices and wish the whole revelation bit would go ahead and kick off.

        In all seriousness, most people I know don’t think that at all…they hate all of this. And these sweeping generalizations are helping year this country apart. Both sides…doing what 70ish years of the USSR failed to do.

        God I miss the 90s. People were optimistic and we didn’t have rapists as Presidents. Oh wait…

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          Yeah, Clinton was a great president. Times were good, I agree

          • 0 avatar
            bobbysirhan

            Clinton was a traitor whose campaign was paid for by the Chinese Communists and he compensated them in spades by selling out the American people that he hated since his teens.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            I mean I don’t have much beef with his being President, but in retrospect he was a lousy human being. Bob Dole was a hero, we (and I say we because I voted for Slick Willy) chose the rapist instead. This isn’t something I wish to repeat.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            Clinton is a real bastard. Personally, he and Greenspan to me, enemies of the people. Before Clinton, I could put my money into CD for 5 years and safely earn my 9%. And with him and after… <2%. He created 2008 disaster. Besides, he is a dirty mofo.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            As to Clinton…if you want the reason why Trump gets away with his illegal garbage, look no further. Before Clinton, presidents didn’t get away with blatant lawbreaking (ask Nixon).

            Ol’ Bill dropped the bar REAL low.

            Sorry, but it’s true.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            @FreedMike I do believe absolutely that with respect to the stuff involving women that Clinton gave the right cover for those sorts of issues.

            The femminists in this country by in large cut a deal with the devil and didn’t abandon him. The difference in their reactions with respect to Bill versus the still recent in people’s memory Clarence Thomas hearings didn’t go unnoticed and it really did erode the credibility of the movement and set the stage now where something that should be apolitical (Women’s rights and protection from workplace harassment and assault) is now almost wholly viewed through politics.

            The Anita Hill example is particularly relevant given what Senator was in charge of the hearings. Those soundbites are coming to a political attack ad near you and much like the deal they cut with Bill Clinton you can sort of get the “He’s a scumbag, but he’s our scumbag” vibe already.

            They backed a scumbag and every passing year it became evident how big of a scumbag he was culminating with “The things you can do to a woman against her will have changed over the past 20 years.” 20 years later when they came back with #metoo…a movement based on a solif priciple that women should not suffer rape or harrassment, it was looked at with scorn by many because the feminist movement had lost credibility. The silence on the allegations vs. Biden doesn’t help. them. They should be at the forefront demanding an investigation and if founded, a replacement nominee. They arent.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @Art:

            I’m not talking about Clinton’s conduct with women – I’m talking about him lying to a grand jury. The allegations about his conduct were he said/she said affairs (and in retrospect, with the experience of a daughter who was mistreated by men, I tend to believe Clinton’s accusers; I didn’t then).

            But the lies to the grand jury were documented facts. That was inexcusable.

            My objections to Trump all stem from his abuses of power and unbelievable incompetence, exemplified by surrounding himself with nincoomps, incompetents, reality-show dingbats like Omarosa, and outright crooks.

            And then we have the whole “Ukraine, please investigate Biden” thing, which anyone with half a brain would NOT have said on a phone call to their president. If he thought Biden was dirty (and maybe he is – we’ll never know now, will we?), then he should have stepped back and assigned it to one of the six million or so investigators at the Justice Department. Instead, he just ran his mouth on a phone call that people witnessed. Whether that was illegal or not is debatable; what’s not debatable is how unbelievably stupid and incompetent it was. And bottom line…no one’s going to know if Biden was really dirty or not, because Trumpmade this about his behavior, not Biden’s.

            What an idiot…and I don’t buy the “but the economy’s good” arguments. It was good under Clinton too, and look what ignoring his conduct because of good economic times eventually led to: someone many, many times worse.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            That is true @Freedmike”. I do feel like the Clinton Presidency was sort of the beginning of the “It’s OK if my guy does it” that plagues both sides of the political aisle today. At the end of the day, members of the President’s party were ready to vote to impeach and remove Nixon from office. That fact alone forced him to step down. That changed with Clinton and has been a staple of both sides since.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        @Lou and Lie2me,

        Guys, I applaud your efforts at introducing facts to Hummer, but he’s not interested. As a Trump acolyte, he’s impervious to facts that disagree with his opinion. Apparently, being the first outed A-hole president is an admirable trait in and of itself.

  • avatar
    ajla

    CAFE was a poorly-designed regulation before Trump ever uttered “you’re fired” on NBC and it will continue to be a poor regulation after he’s out of office and guest judging bikini contests and chili cookoffs.
    Unfortunately overall political divisiveness has made discussion of the law itself nearly impossible.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      CAFE rules caused the large SUV boom and the shift from 1/2 ton pickups to “heavy halfs”. The USA car makers basically gave up on making cars that people wanted and the Japanese took over that segment.

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      ajla,

      Wholeheartedly agree that CAFE is far from optimal policy.
      • Largely ineffective in its stated objectives
      • Certainly inefficient vs. other possible approaches
      • Significant unintended consequences [or intended but not acknowledged]

      The latest “footprint” CAFE rules seem custom-tailored to certain manufacturers [and seriously burned certain vehicle models from other OEM’s].

      Took a class once where it was explained that when a government policy looks completely stupid to you, you are probably looking at it wrong, i.e., there are probably valid non-stupid reasons for the apparently-stupid aspects.

      I would welcome more “discussion of the law itself” and pledge to abstain from ‘yeah but *your* guy…’ ego skirmishes.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @toolguy- laws often are inherently political but not from the typical left/right axis. Politicians bend to the will of their biggest financial supporters. CAFE with GVW limits helped the domestic industry because they were sh!tty at building small vehicles. Add to that the fact that pickups or pickup based SUVS are more profitable.
        We still see the political “bigger is better” laws in the footprint regulations. You can no longer get a regular cab compact truck partially because of footprint regulations.

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    “California Attorney General Xavier Becerra…”
    once i saw this name used in a quote, all responsible discorse was washed away.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      @lie2me, his ex wife has recanted that. I’m not sure how old you are, but if you remember that divorce, it was messy.

      I believe Donald took the stand and with reference to Marla Maples proclaimed “Let the record show, best sex I have ever had”

      He has enough allegations for sure, but in this case there is no reason to doubt her account that she was carried away and angry over the divorce since it came from her own mouth.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    Hey, Hummer, Trump even raped his wife…

    From their divorce papers:

    “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a “rape”, but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.

    — Ivana Trump

    From: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Ivana_Trump_(1989)

    Come on, Hummer, DO BETTER

  • avatar
    Hummer

    Cmon lie, did you even read what you posted?

    You can do better than that, I have no trouble finding articles about Biden’s rape history from the 1990s. No trouble finding pictures of him sniffing kids or Frenching his granddaughter.

    The best you have to support your argument is a paragraph that you want me to misinterpret for your benefit.

    • 0 avatar
      Lie2me

      There’s a link that you didn’t read, but you won’t, it will cause too much internal conflict and your head will explode

      Thanks again for the list of all the wonderful things that Trump has done for you and your family

      … Still waiting :)

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        It’s a Wikipedia link, I’ve seen the article way back in 2016 when the left was desperately throwing everything at Trump to stop his grassroots effort. It was a nothingburger then as it is now.

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          Contents from the Wikipedia link of sexual misconduct charges against Trump

          1 Accusations filed in court against Trump

          1.1 Ivana Trump (1989)
          1.2 Jill Harth (1992)
          1.3 E. Jean Carroll (1995 or 1996)
          1.4 Summer Zervos (2007)
          1.5 Alva Johnson (2019)

          2 May 2016 New York Times story
          3 Recording controversy and second 2016 presidential debate
          4 Public allegations since 2016

          4.1 Jessica Leeds (1980s)
          4.2 Kristin Anderson (1990s)
          4.3 Lisa Boyne (1996)
          4.4 Cathy Heller (1997)
          4.5 Temple Taggart McDowell (1997)
          4.6 Karena Virginia (1998)
          4.7 Karen Johnson (early 2000s)
          4.8 Mindy McGillivray (2003)
          4.9 Jennifer Murphy (2005)
          4.10 Rachel Crooks (2005)
          4.11 Natasha Stoynoff (2005)
          4.12 Juliet Huddy (2005 or 2006)
          4.13 Jessica Drake (2006)
          4.14 Ninni Laaksonen (2006)
          4.15 Cassandra Searles (2013)

          5 Pageant dressing room visits

          5.1 Mariah Billado, Victoria Hughes, and three other Miss Teen USA contestants (1997)
          5.2 Bridget Sullivan (2000)
          5.3 Tasha Dixon (2001)
          5.4 Unnamed contestants (2001)
          5.5 Samantha Holvey (2006)

          6 Other incidents

          Still waiting to hear about the wonderful things that Trump has done for you and your family

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Oh wow, a multi billionaire has been in court, could you provide the outcome to these trials?

            Your desperate.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            You can’t read either, can you?

            Do you not know how to copy and paste a link?

            You have a wonderful day, try not to walk into any walls

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “Oh wow, a multi billionaire has been in court”

            For multiple sexual offences…

            Other than Jeffrey Epstein, I don’t know of any billionaires with that sort of rap sheet. Harvey Weinstein isn’t a billionaire.

            I kinda think that King Chloroquine wants to keep a lid on his taxes because they prove he isn’t a billionaire.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Lou, I said that back when he was elected, he doesn’t take a salary because he doesn’t see himself as a government employee which justifies him not showing his tax returns which will prove that not only is he not a billionaire he’s hundreds of million dollars in debt to both China and Russia

            Kind of embarrassing

          • 0 avatar
            golden2husky

            Lie2Me – why feed this troll? If he really believes what he says, well…

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            What has Donald Trump done for me?

            My country is safer and He’s kept my neighbors out of new and unnecessary foreign wars, I know the left is hurting that we haven’t jumped into a new war for a whole 3 years now.

            I finally have a medical plan without a copay again, been 8 years prior to getting that since I last had a decent insurance thanks to obummer

            I’m working less than I ever have in my adult life and making around a quarter mil a year, thanks to a good job market and sorely needed competition

            I’m paying less taxes now than I was 5 years ago

            He has continued to protect our constitution and individual liberties.

            My general life shouldn’t be affected by the federal government, their main function is to protect the land I pay taxes for from foreign invaders with the minimal amount of taxation possible.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Whoa, Hummer, I don’t know what drugs you’re on, but damn, all’s right with the world in Hummerland

            “Lie2Me – why feed this troll? If he really believes what he says, well…”

            You’re right, golden2husky, this one’s a lost cause :(

          • 0 avatar
            Hummer

            Lol @ being called a Troll by mini Goebbels. TTACs very own propaganda ministry making sure the record is set straight with long discredited talking points.

            As I mentioned multiple times, the best the Democrats have to offer is Biden, deflecting to Trump with made up accusations is the only stance you have.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Oh boy. I love Elections where the argument boils down to “Your guy has more rape allegations than our guy. Man I am so freaking proud to be an American! If you people accept this as the status quo, we are toast.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Art, you say this every day. If you want to give up on your country, fine, I don’t

            Some guys just want to sit back and watch the world burn

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            You’re sick with TDS.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            So says the guy who thinks Pinochet would be a good fit for America, and states should be cut off from food supplies.

            Take a hike, slavuta.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        @lie2me, his ex wife has recanted that. I’m not sure how old you are, but if you remember that divorce, it was messy.

        I believe Donald took the stand and with reference to Marla Maples proclaimed “Let the record show, best sex I have ever had”

        He has enough allegations for sure, but in this case there is no reason to doubt her account that she was carried away and angry over the divorce since it came from her own mouth.

        It came up in the election

        • 0 avatar
          Lie2me

          Art, you know how Wikipedia works, wrong information can be corrected and knowing this president is concerned only with his image and nothing else, don’t you think that one of his goons would have corrected even one word that was incorrect? Ivana, who Trump has paid millions to over the years said in 2015 the story “is without merit”. However the facts of the case still stand as a legal document and HAS NEVER BEEN CHANGED BY ANYONE nor has the Wiki entry

          Now, I provided several credible links discussing the sexual misconduct of our chief, self admitted “pu$$y-grabber” I welcome any credible links you have to the contrary…

          I’ll wait

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            I am speaking specifically about that allegation. She said it was without merit. I get so confused as to which women should be believed and which not.

            And spare me dude. I’ve done my bit for God and Country. I’m the last to give up on it. To the contrary, I am done accepting the notion that we as the greatest nation on the face of the Earth can’t do better. If you want to settle, that’s on you.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            If Ivana perjured herself, that’s on her, but the statement I presented was a direct quote from HER. If I got as much money from Trump as she has I might try and walk it back myself. The whole family is nothing but lying grifters.

            I know you did a lot for this country and I for one appreciate it. If you want to sit this one out that’s your choice, I can’t do that. I got to go for the guy that at least might try and steer this Titanic of a country away from the iceberg

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            I guess we see it differently. One is Captain Smith speeding the Titanic up into an ice field and the other is Joe Hazlewood drunk at the helm of the Exxon Valdez. Either of these buffoons are going to puncture the ship’s hull with terrible results. Call me idealistic, but we can do better and I intend to attempt to make anyone I interact with realize that.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Art, someone HAS to be president, “none of the above” is not one of the choices. I sat out the last election because I didn’t care for either choice, that was a mistake I won’t make again. Everyone gets one vote, what you decide to do with it is up to you, just try and think long term and make that one vote work for the good of the country

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            I’m not sitting it out…I’m just voting for someone else other than these two assuming one of the third parties nominates a better candidate. Shouldn’t be hard…like I said, Vermin Supreme and “The rent is too [email protected] high” dude are better options.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          @Art:

          “I believe Donald took the stand and with reference to Marla Maples proclaimed “Let the record show, best sex I have ever had”

          Amazing what people will say when they get a nine-figure check dangled in front of their faces, LOL…

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            @Freedmike, that divorce was the beginning of reality TV in this country. Donald Trump learned the ropes and honed his brand during those proceedings. If you want to understand his media persona, look there. It was truly “No publicity is bad publicity” and replace “Ivana’s Divorce Lawyer” with “Jim Acosta” it makes sense.

            I’m not condoning it or saying it is good in any way, it just makes you say “Oh, I get it”.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            @FreedMike

            oh, poor Mike. You don’t like Pinochet. Do you like Bernie Sanders? What difference would that make? Then again, US installed Pinochet. We must like him

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            @Salvuta Bernie is no more relevant than saying “I don’t like O.J. Simpson. Neither of them will ever be in charge of a nation.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            Mike, Don’t forget that Trump fans can’t allow facts to sway their opinion. It’s like taking someone with Celiac’s Disease who is lactose intolerant to Lou Malnati’s. Doesn’t matter how good the pizza is – they won’t get it.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @Slavuta:

            If you can’t figure out the difference between Pinochet and Bernie Sanders, try cracking a history book.

            Seriously, TTAC…ignore button. I feel like I’m losing a tenth of an IQ point even responding to this kind of nonsense.

          • 0 avatar
            slavuta

            “Right, Bernie Sanders and AOC will ban cars,”

            this is what they said in UK. And now it is banned. I mean, ICE cars, of course

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          @Art,

          I mentioned Senders in a hypothetical context. It could be any other radical liberal, like AOC, etc. Then you really can forget driving a car

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Right, Bernie Sanders and AOC will ban cars, thus p*ssing off the tens of millions of Democrats who own cars. Brilliant re-election strategy…

            Seriously, TTAC…ignore button. Please.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          @Art,

          I actually talked to Marla Maples in real life. My son nearly became Trumps daughter’s friend.

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    Revoke California exemption to set emissions standards.

    One nation, One standard!

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Not really how the framers intended this to work. I like my guns and like that my state doesn’t really interfere with that. What do I care if some other state feels similarly about emissions or fuel economy.

      • 0 avatar
        bobbysirhan

        The interstate commerce clause suggests that this was one area they did not want left up to the individual states. The Constitution was meant to protect the citizenry from the government, and the framers had a deft hand in determining when states’ rights were beneficial and when they were destructive.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          “…the framers had a deft hand in determining when states’ rights were beneficial and when they were destructive.”

          not really. I revere the framer and what they were able to do, but the fact that we fought a war 100 years later over their failure to simply say “No, one person owning another is not a states rights issue” alone shows they were far from infallible on this.

          at the end of the day, for most of the time we have had emission standards there were two sets. I fail to see why that can’t continue to work as it has a demonstrated success rate.

          I honestly believe it is Trump being petty and frankly that BS is beneath the office. The cities where most Californians live have unique geography that makes this an issue for them. Let them deal with it in the manner that they decide is best. It really isn’t any of my business unless I move out there in which case I’d prefer not choke on smog.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      I would rather see this. Manufactures disregard CA standards, keep making cars the way they want it. CA can’t import these. People now have no options. I want this scenario. I want to see where this will go.

      1. People raise against CA gov.
      2. CA start import something else
      3. CA start building their own cars
      4. People run away from CA
      5. …

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        1. Automakers go bankrupt because they chose to not serve a market in the US that consists of over 15 million registered vehicles which is nearly twice the size of the next largest state (Texas, just over 8 million).

        2. This ignores that the markets that follow California’s standard comprise 40 percent of the market so see number 1, only quicker.

        3. As one who is outside of that market even I realize that that 40 percent of the market is likely more affluent and as a carmaker I would be ill advised to not serve it because again, see number 1.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Do you think, in the war of manufacturers saying this: We will rather close our factories and lay off 200K workers here in US and sell products somewhere else in the world for less profit… vs succumbing to these crazy rules you impose… do you think, states will not suddenly wake up and think again, and be more reasonable?

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            We have a template for this Salvuta…people said the same stuff when the original emissions and fuel economy standards came on line in the 70’s and for a short time, it looked like they may be right as cars got slow and bad.

            But then they figured it out and gave us some of the most magnificent machines to ever put tire to road…machines that made those so called “golden era” cars look like model T’s by comparison.

            I believe in our engineers. Why? Because they typically respond. It is why my little 1.6 powered Fiesta ST would be some completely forbidden fruit Cosworth rally special to 15 year old me reading a Car and Driver back in the day. They know what people want, they are given the standards they must work with, and they make it happen.

            Perhaps back in your Mother Russia businesses fold their tents like the USSR watching the wall fall when faced with a challenge, but traditionally we and other western nations do not. We roll up our sleeves and get to work. History backs me up on this. They will not succomb to these “Crazy Rules”, they will thrive within them as they typically do.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          I think, you’re too optimistic. I see hoe engineers rolled up their sleeves. Their latest creations are

          1. Low tension piston rings that have been problematic/oil burning
          2. DI – need for cleaning intake ports from carbon buildup
          3. 8/10- “hunting” gear transmissions that seem can’t find out what they want to do
          4. Plastic engine parts that often need replacement
          5. Wire insulation perfect for rodents to eat
          6. Galore of turbocharged engines that can only be efficient when driven very gently

          All these things are done to increase MPGs either by saving weight or otherwise. As result, shops have to perform more work. Every time you do this, you need to use more material, more manufacturing, more equipment use… and as result, you use more electricity produced by coal burning plant. And you totally offset all gains in MPGs.

          I believe, if cars needed less repairs, burned less oil, used more metallic recyclable parts, had long lasting tires; that would be way better for the environment vs couple extra mpgs.

          Moreover, we are looking at cars like this is the main source of trouble. How about house pets – dogs and cats. Researchers calculated that a medium size dog in its lifetime uses amount of resources equal to a resource needed to build a medium size SUV. We can ban pets, which are not necessity, and we can save 1 SUV per pet.
          Nobody cares that American homeowners throw millions of tons of fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides onto their lawns. Then all of this junk goes in to streams, rivers and oceans. Are flawless lawns necessities of life? Can you imagine how much pollution we can cut if we stop these chemicals being produced altogether?

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      Hey Ober,

      We have 50 states. If you don’t like the climate, the politics, the people in any one state, you can move to another. Don’t like Illinois corruption? There’s always Michigan or California! Don’t like the bugs and gators in Louisiana? There’s always Montana!

      I’m a state’s rights guy, as you are. It’s just that you’re not as principled on the matter.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    America used to work. LBJ was able to get many of his projects enacted with support from both parties. So did Reagan and Clinton.

    Mitch McConnell put an end to compromise.

    The current POTUS has further inflamed the situation by making false and misleading statements, which have been well documented, bullying from the most powerful pulpit in the world, issuing EO’s that have been ruled unconstitutional, and generally acting as a provocateur rather than as a leader.

    I take Tara Reade’s accusations seriously. Just as I do the court statement made by one of Trump’s ex-wives, the accusations of 25 other women against him, and his filmed statement about sexually assaulting women.

    What riles me is that those who agree with Trump’s politics spend so much time ignoring the evidence and trying to whitewash his behaviour. If you agree with his politics, then just admit it and the fact that you are willing to make a deal to get what you want, regardless of who provides it.

    As for Biden, I believe that he is a weak candidate and that the Democrats will have shot themselves in the foot if he is their candidate.

    Regarding vehicles. Does the USA still allow accelerated tax deductions for vehicles over a gross weight? It has been alleged that was the major reason for the sale of oversized pick-ups and SUVs. Dentists writing off F-250s is one example that was provided.

    Granted those in the flyover states often drive long distances and do not have access to public transit.

    And that public transit even if good, is not particularly popular under current circumstances. I wonder how many of the ‘open things up now’ crowd are willing to take public transit?

    Frankly watching the USA from across the border, I am concerned about the ‘free world’. Russia benefits militarily from the current disorder and alienation of America from its allies. How long before the Baltic States or Ukraine again fall under Russian influence? How can independent African and Asian states resist Chinese influence when the USA is withdrawing into itself?

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      “America used to work. LBJ was able to get many of his projects enacted with support from both parties.”

      Great way to start your post, put the biggest racist POS in the last 100 years as your example of a good politician.

      No ones ignoring Trumps behavior, in fact most people strongly support it in this country. The anti-politician attitude, the America first attitude, and no whiny unhinged bull is exactly what America wants and needs. This country is tired of career politicians like Biden and this election will be a referendum on that status quo.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        Even FOX polls disagree with your observation

        “New Fox News poll finds Biden with healthy lead, sends Trump into tailspin

        The president is mad that Fox News isn’t rigging polls for him.
        By Aaron [email protected] May 22, 2020, 1:10pm EDT ”

        https://www.vox.com/2020/5/22/21267428/fox-news-poll-biden-trump

        • 0 avatar
          bobbysirhan

          So now Fox News is the gold standard? You must be hanging on by your fingernails after learning that you spent three years as a prize fool regurgitating Adam Schiff’s diarrhea when ‘Russian Collusion’ was really #Obamagate all along. Dumb.

          https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/president-trump-leads-joe-biden-in-15-battleground-states-but-former-vice-president-holds-edge-nationally-cnn-poll-shows/ar-BB142YqL CNN is a joke too, but it is certainly entertaining that the only states giving Biden the nod are the ones where their Democrat governors are killing citizens to kill the economy to keep the dolts they have left in their thrall on the reservation. I wonder how many people exactly like you Cuomo, Newsome and Whitmer murdered to make sure you can’t stomach the idea of reexamining your assumptions? Ironic.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Hi, little bobby, still up drinking I see. You’re going to have one of your wicked hangovers tomorrow. Such a shame what you’ve become

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @lie2me – “Hi, little bobby, still up drinking I see.

            Moscow is in a different time zone. 7-10 hours ahead depending if you are on the left coast or east coast ;)

            Mind you, Sirhan is a Muslim name. Iran is around 12 hours ahead…..الحمد لله.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Who cares? Clinton was 500 points ahead of Trump. Did you see all these people at gun ranges? They are practicing well

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        No doubt that LBJ was a terrible human being. Probably should have written ‘even LBJ’. But he may not have been the most racist. Check for example Woodrow Wilson (although just inside the 100 year mark).

        But claiming that most Americans support Trump’s behaviour is downright untrue. Trump lost the popular vote. Many, as I stated hold their nose and support him because they hope to get what they want from his administration.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        I mean, you are both right. The polls are likely accurate with regard to Trump (Though we are an eternity from the election and who knows what Biden will say in a debate) AND LBJ is a racist piece of trash. Don’t believe it? Listen to his tapes. It is a great irony that he gets so much credit for civil rights given his self professed motivations. And Vietnam. Yeah, he was trash.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      There are still business deductions that can be used on vehicles in certain circumstances but a dentist writing off an F-250 would almost certainly be tax fraud under the current laws.

      “Heavy duty” trucks and vans are also fully exempt from CAFE calculations.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        @ajla, Thanks, can you provide a simple explanation? It was common to read/hear that large vehicles sold so well in the USA because of their tax status.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          Here’s a good write up on section 179.
          http://www.section179.org/section_179_vehicle_deductions/

          Basically the US tax code does give advantageous treatment to most pick up trucks but a dentist would have a hard time satisfying the >50% business use requirement (let alone 100% for a full deduction) unless they made housecalls or owned multiple offices that they traveled between. If you buy an F-250, write it off, and just let your spouse drive it all day then you’re committing fraud.

          Note that commuting from a residence to an office will almost never be considered business use.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            Except the dentist wouldn’t be looking to write off the basic Corolla.

            The $80K F-250 Limited ($100K MSRP) is still an extreme duty workhorse if need be, to the cabinet maker, tile setter, etc.

  • avatar

    If EVs become mainstream prices will plunge and better batteries will be invented because of free market.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      the analysis says, EV can’t become mainstream. We don’t have grid capacity for EVs. And nobody wants to build nuclear or fossil fuel power plants

  • avatar
    probert

    look who is heading the epa.

  • avatar
    probert

    Look at who is heading the EPA FFS. What was it a judge said when recently cancelling oil and gas leases on public land that are being handed out like candy: roughly “It’s not that I’m questioning the legal process you have gone through, it is that you have not gone through any legal process.” This probably describes the current EPA scenario.

    Car companies are not hiding – or, god forbid, siding with environmentalists, they know that having to design 2 cars – one for the world, and one for america, is not good business. They also know that the capricious way these possibly illegal rulings are made, means they may be revoked at any time. Tough way to have to do business.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      It is a tough way to do business, but we had 2 standards for much of those companies’ histories. They are free to simply go with the stricter standards for all. In fact, I bet most wouldn’t notice. It isn’t 1979…GM won’t be foisting 305 powered C3’s upon us. All cars are so stupid fast now it just isn’t that big of a deal.

      And we aren’t adopting world standards. We already design different cars for other markets because of different values those markets have. It is why Europeans can’t buy fullsized pickups and why I can’t get the new Fiesta ST…which is the real tragedy here lol.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        There’s a couple major differences, then and now. By the late 80’s, cars were efficient enough and CAFE was tightening the screws enough that CARB could take a passive role.

        “49 State” cars were the rare exception, like the 2000 era VW Beetle diesel (pre TDI) off the top of my head. Plus by the early ’90s, the “truck” exemption expanded dramatically to include lots more than just fullsize pickups and panel vans.

        The CARB was free to cruise and turn their venomous hate on diesels, even banning existing (grandfathered?) commercial (pre emissions) non DEF diesels from CA roads.

        Except in the ’70s, CAFE/CARB fines were enormous and obviously taken seriously. But they haven’t been adjusted for inflation, so they’re a joke now. It’s still a lot of money, collectively, except on a per vehicle basis, they’re nothing compared to the MSRP of worst offenders.

        Today, there’s no real reason for the CARB to exist, and is totally redundant to various other CA environmental agencies including the California EPA, completely independent from the “EPA” EPA. That’s what the CARB is really suing over.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Another round of Lysol for everyone, my treat. As for the CAFE standards let California have their own standards. My only concern about maintaining the 54 mpgs is that this will increase the number of vehicles with direct injection and turbo engines along with cvts which make vehicles less reliable, more expensive to maintain, and not last as long. Maybe this will be an incentive for buyers to dump ICE and go EVs but then you have the lack of infrastructure and the high costs of EVs. Not that thrilled about turbo 4s, less thrilled about turbo 3s, and fear the next step will be turbo 2s with cvts. If turbo 2s are the next ICE then the manufacturers could offer a mowing deck and snow blower attachments. Oh well back to self-isolation and bourbon therapy to keep Covid-19 away.

    • 0 avatar
      Duaney

      Jeff S comment about extra technology resulting in vehicles that don’t last. A good example is the GM 3.6 liter V-6. Made with low tension piston rings for better MPG, these engines typically burn oil prematurely, and end up shelling bearings when ran too low on oil. Some of them only last 60-80 thousand miles. An EPA mandate that ends up badly for the consumer. Keep the damn government out of it and we’ll all do better.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        I can apply all of the arguments against technology like low piston rings and perceived turbo issues to 1973ish. “Them catalysts and emission control devices will make cars worse and have no power” And they did for a few years until the industry figured it out and began building cars that were better in every conceivable manner from performance to fuel economy to anything else you can think of.

        Most cars aren’t built for people who post on internet car blogs or who were before that avid readers of the car rags and taped motor week on their beta-max. Way back in the day most Novas and Chevelles weren’t SS models they were slushbox equipped sixes that were more miserable than anything made in the last 30 years. Anything. Most Honda’s weren’t Si models, nobody bought Type R Integras, Most Rabbits were painfully slow and by today’s standards even that GTI you remember so fondly.

        We live in a golden era. I paid 16k out the door for a car with the power to weight of an E30 M3 and would at least not be embarassed by it at the track. 36 grand gets you an electric that is straight out of an Arthur C. Clarke novel.

        We live in a freaking golden era…perhaps THE golden era to this point but people are so hung up on whatever $#!+box they owned “back in the day” or are too stupid to just enjoy it.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Art – fully agree. The pre-70’s stuff was simple to work on since there wasn’t much to them but I’d take my 2010 F150 over anything from that era as a daily driver. My truck has more comfort, power,capability and durability than anything back then.

        • 0 avatar
          Duaney

          Art, remember when the EPA mandated lower emissions in the early 70’s, the resultant vehicles of 1973-74 were some of the worst running and low mpg of all time. Because the industry didn’t quite yet have the technology ready such as catalytic converters and fuel injection. That screwed over consumers at that time with terrible cars. I would prefer that instead of the heavy hand of government, the marketplace inspire automakers to bring forth the new technology and development. The government can always gently push as well, but the firm mandate can be troublesome.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            How long have they known this was on the horizon? And last I checked the automakers are on board with the California standards.

    • 0 avatar
      Old_WRX

      Turbo engines that get great mileage only on the EPA mileage tests and suck down fuel in real driving.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @ajla–Exemption of HD trucks from CAFE is a major reason why many are buying them. One of the few vehicles that are not turbo charged and that do not have 8 or 10 speed transmissions.

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    So the real question is how do these emission standards effect Hector? I ask because it is well known that he is gonna be running three Honda Civics with Spoon engines. On top of that, he just came into Harry’s and ordered three T66 turbos with NOS and a Motec system exhaust.

  • avatar
    Marc Welch

    Key sentence inthe article, ” The Obama-era standards that would have seen Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rise to 54 mpg by 2025 were deemed unsustainable by that administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), but were put into play anyway.” Be careful of liberal political mindsets at work…they demand goals they themselves cannot achieve.

  • avatar
    MeJ

    Hey!
    Anyone want to talk about cars?

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      No. We’re in the Cold civil war

    • 0 avatar
      Matt Posky

      Thanks, that’d be nice.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        @Matt:

        I love talking cars. But when someone says something stupid – like “hey, the US could use a guy like Pinochet and, oh, yeah, we should cut off food supplies to states I don’t like” or “Trump is a Nazi and everyone who supports him just goose-steps along” – what do you expect people to do, just sing the “I’d Like To Teach The World To Sing” song from the Coke ad?

        Not bloody likely…nothing gets peoples’ backs more effectively than idiocy.

        If you want more civil discussions around here, I’d suggest the site install an “Ignore” button. That way, people can just ignore the people who are just here to get their rocks off making other people mad, and talk about cars. Eventually, the trolls who are here to get their jollies on your site will go somewhere else.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          An ignore button would be nice, but I doubt that is in the cards.

          An easier solution would be stricter comment moderation against people trolling, name-calling, or grand standing. They don’t have to hand out lifetime bans, just parking some people for 24-96 hours would do a world of good.

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Mike,

          are you working for Ministry of Truth or a thought police?

          I thought we have a 1st Amendment. Besides, Trump just signed executive order. So, argue with me but don’t police me.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Slavuta brings up two interesting Constitutional questions:

            a) Can he show up on someone else’s property (i.e., TTAC, which presumably isn’t his property) and say whatever he wants?
            b) Can he force everyone on someone else’s private property to listen to him?

            You don’t need a degree in Constitutional Law to figure out both answers are:
            a) LOL
            b) LOL

            Try reading the 1st before you quote it, friend.

            (Of course he resists the idea of an “ignore” button…he’s here for attention. If he gets ignored, he has to go elsewhere to get his wittle ego boosted.)

        • 0 avatar
          slavuta

          Mike,

          do #a and #b apply to you? I didn’t pull you by tongue to answer to my posts.

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      I like cars! Let’s talk cars.

      Just went to Ford’s USA website. They have your choice of two (cars).

      “Golden era”? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  • avatar
    SSJeep

    Clearly the “Best and Brightest” are at work here in this thread. I think at least half of the “B&B” need to be on some sort of medication based on this thread alone. Dont you people have jobs?

  • avatar
    jkross22

    Emission standard requirements vary by state and cities. Let the states do what they need, and let manufacturers decide how to square that.

    This is one of the few areas government should take a leadership role and they have. As someone in So. Cal., I can easily say that the air quality here is better today than it was around 9/11/01.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Lou_BC–True but at least the HDs don’t have turbo charged 6s and trucks don’t have cvts but all that could change if CAFE standards get even more stringent. The next generation Tundra will have a turbo 6. In the next few years you might see all the manufacturers replace V8s with turbo 6s in their half ton pickups and eventually you will see more turbo 3s and 4s replace V6s in midsize pickups along with more aluminum, alloy, and plastic body parts to lighten the weight. Trucks have become more of a target for regulators because more buyers are replacing their traditional sedans with crew cab pickups. As trucks become more popular they will become more regulated and will be required to meet more stringent CAFE standards.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      I have zero problems with owning a V6 turbo truck. With that being said, a F350 Tremor with 7.3 is what I’d want to buy next. That is because it’s 500 lbs.lighter than the diesel and I have zero interest in towing a big trailer.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Well then maybe you would like an F350 with a turbo 6 and an F150 with a turbo 4. My point is not so much against the turbo 6 in the F150 as it is the gaming of regulations in order to comply by using smaller engines in vehicles not meant to have them which reduces the reliability and life of the vehicles. I am not so much a fan of big displacement engines as I am concerned about the longevity and reliability of a vehicle. Manufacturers can make the vehicles lighter but there is a limit to what manufacturers can do with ICE to squeeze out more efficiency. As for your F350 7.3 that you want that will eventually be replaced with a smaller turbo engine as well. My point is that trucks will be more regulated especially when more buyers are choosing trucks over cars.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ScarecrowRepair: Memory sez …. the original rationalization for hydrogen was that refueling stations would use...
  • Vulpine: @DM: That’s because newer cars last longer than older cars. You’re referencing the AVERAGE age...
  • Flipper35: But, but, hydrogen is plentiful! On a serious note, there are other actual fuels that can be used for fuel...
  • DenverMike: Yes by the ’90s, automakers figured it all out, worked out the bugs, etc, etc. But what good are...
  • ToolGuy: @Tim Healey, Suggestion: You could get 3-4 solid [separate] posts out of the topics you bring up here, which...

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