By on January 28, 2021

GMC

The Detroit Free Press is reporting that General Motors is looking to be gas-free by 2040. Specifically, GM “aspires” to have light-duty vehicles in all global markets be zero-emission by 2035 and all products and plants be carbon-neutral by 2040.

The word “aspires” does some heavy lifting here — giving the General cover if it doesn’t meet the goal. A goal that seems ambitious at this point in time, in our view. It’s definitely notable that GM doesn’t say all its cars and trucks will be zero-emissions.

When it says “light-duty vehicles”, GM includes full-size pickup trucks and its SUVs in that mix.

GM also could buy carbon credits to offset any plants or vehicles that are not zero-emission. GM also plans to use renewable energy for its plants and to reuse or recycle components.

“General Motors is joining governments and companies around the globe working to establish a safer, greener and better world,” said Mary Barra, GM Chairman and CEO, in a statement. “We encourage others to follow suit and make a significant impact on our industry and on the economy as a whole.”

Here’s what Dane Parker, GM’s chief sustainability officer, told the Freep: ” ‘Aspire’ is a great word because it helps us work toward our vision. We’re taking action to have our vehicles be zero emissions by 2035. This is going to take the effort of a lot of people and a lot of governments to get there. So we have a vision, we have a plan and we’re taking action today to get there.”

Heavy-duty pickups appear part of the plan, at least by 2040. More from Parker talking to the Freep: “By 2040, 100 percent of our portfolio will be fully electric and that’s the vision we’re setting out.”

GM also signed a pledge to help keep the global temperature from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Parker told the paper that GM doesn’t expect their pursuit of this goal to cost jobs, and he also sees gas stations becoming charging stations. That latter will be needed to help drive the shift to EVs — one factor holding back EV adoption is a lack of charging infrastructure.

GM says it “plans to offer an EV for every customer, from crossovers and SUVs to trucks and sedans.”

It doesn’t mention sports cars there, which makes us sad, but we’ve heard rumors of an electric Corvette, and there’s no reason the company couldn’t build fun-to-drive EV coupes. It’s even possible that rip-roaring V8s for both sports cars and heavy-duty trucks could still be sold in limited numbers if the carbon is offset. Yes, GM says “100 percent” of its portfolio will go EV, but there’s wiggle room here via both the carbon offsets and the company’s own admission that it “aspires” to this goal and might not get there.

Or maybe we’re being knuckledraggers. Maybe the internal-combustion engine will be well and truly dead, at least when it comes to new vehicles, in less than 15 years.

“Always in motion is the future,” said Yoda. GM’s plan is certainly in motion, starting with the Hummer, and it will be interesting to see if the company can get to this goal, or even come close. The EV plans are still in their infancy — GM has the Bolt, and the upcoming Cadillac Lyriq, but the lineup still includes trucks that use thirsty V8s.

The company’s fleet will need quite the makeover over the next 14-19 years to reach this goal.

[Image: GM]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

61 Comments on “Report: GM Wants to Be Gas-Free by 2040...”


  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Smells like political pandering – convenient when the claimants won’t be around to fulfill the promise, or answer for its failure.

    “Market forces” will be the excuse – and possibly a legitimate one – if they can’t hit the target.

    • 0 avatar
      tomLU86

      Hopefully. Nothing is guaranteed. Toyota probably will not be ‘gas-free’ by 2040. But Toyota will probably be in business, so there is good chance they will be polluting.

      Just as dead people don’t generate waste, dead companies don’t generate pollution–or build polluters. Let’s hope that GM doesn’t stumble out of existence.

    • 0 avatar
      Rich Fitzwell

      Secure options and equity as part of your compensation package, make absurd promises about things that you don’t meet, sell things that don’t exist, promise things that will happen in the future even with no viable path to deliver them, make vague claims about your company’s future, change your logo and then sit back and count your billions…

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      Green car hippie here.

      I’m not as worried about going gas-free as I am about getting to 50% or 75% adoption.

      The “I have to have an ICE” people have a point, for a lot of corner-case vehicle applications, and some of those applications are really worthwhile in practical terms.

      An example of this would be a medical courier who drives a minivan full of transplanted organs 1000 miles without stopping. If that guy needs an ICE minivan, it’s worth the environmental cost. Someone else mentioned oddball vehicles used to fight forest fires, and if ICE vehicles are the right tool for that job, it’s the right tool for the job.

      I’m one of the biggest green car hippies I know, but I don’t see ICE vehicles going away completely as desirable. We should keep ICE vehicles around for niche applications which need their capabilities.

      Turning the average commuter-car, grocery-getter, and delivery-vehicle into an EV is where I want to go. That’s there the benefits are, and 100% adoption isn’t necessary to eliminate the bulk of impact.

      GM is a for-profit company. They’ll continue to build ICE vehicles as long as it makes them money, regardless of what they say.

  • avatar
    ajla

    I aspire to build a time machine and marry circa 1999 Heidi Klum.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Well until this week I’d say GM is shooting itself in the foot, but well we crossed into the Twilight Zone so maybe this actually makes sense.

    “and he also sees gas stations becoming charging stations.”

    That really doesn’t work but it fits with Agenda 2030 and they control the printing press.

    “The EV plans are still in their infancy — GM has the Bolt”

    Yeah how are those doing?

    • 0 avatar
      4onthefloor

      It does make sense, but must be implemented in a sensible way. GM doesn’t have the ability to do it in my opinion. Elon is brilliant but spread too thin in my estimation. If he focused on Tesla full time, probably. But spacex is too intoxicating, and I think that’s where his true talent lies.

  • avatar
    Cicero

    I find it a bad omen that GM even has a “Chief Sustainability Officer.”

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      Sustainability covers more than just green stuff.

      Economic sustainability is a pillar of sustainability, too, and GM whiffed that one pretty bad about a decade ago, because they were all-in on vehicles which did no longer suited the market conditions (high fuel prices).

      Oops.

      Having efficient vehicles in the product product portfolio helps with both environmental issues, and with economic sustainability.

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    How often do companies and governments make these proclamations.

    Never come true. Will be some excuse why it can’t happen. Or future leadership is left to implement.

    Sounds good. Means nothing.

    Won’t happen.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      Our EV future is coming… the question is timing. 20 years from now is 3 to 4 vehicle generations away. For this gas-free GM to become reality 1/2 of their fleet needs to be electric in 10 years. On a shorter scale this means 1/4 of the fleet will be in EV in 5 years which is just around the corner. IE: the C9 will be EV. Seems too optimistic given the infrastructure just isn’t there yet.

  • avatar
    ollicat

    Manmade climate change is a hoax. There are HUGE problems with battery cars:
    1.) the exponentially longer time to recharge fully.
    2.) an enormous part of the population doesn’t part their car near a high speed charging port, or even where electricity is easy to get to
    3.) What happens when the power goes out (I am talking to you California)
    4.) what happens in the aftermath of a natural disaster like a hurricane or earthquake when electricity is out for weeks or months. Gas can be transported in
    5.) If we all went to electric cars, our grid would collapse or have rolling blackouts. What fun!
    6.) if we build more powerplants (which we should have already started), we need more coal, nuclear, and natural gas, which kind of defeats the purpose. wind and solar is not going to scratch the surface

    Why is nobody in government or the auto industry even talking about any of these issues?

    • 0 avatar
      JD-Shifty

      I’m glad people like you aren’t in charge of anything

    • 0 avatar
      conundrum

      Hello Rip Van Ollicat. Up from the basement after a good snooze since 2002 and hey, man-made climate is a hoax. There hasn’t been a loss of insects, bees are everywhere, the world hasn’t got hotter every year, atmospheric CO2 hasn’t whipped past 418 ppm, the waters of the North Atlantic haven’t warmed 5 to 6 degrees, fish are abundant — never been more, the Greenland ice sheet isn’t melting, the Arctic isn’t almost ice-free. No, none of this has happened, because you, some no one, tells us it’s all a hoax. Time to wipe those bleary eyes and get with the program, mate.

      • 0 avatar
        ollicat

        Sorry buddy, selective information. Antarctica ice is growing. Global warming stopped in the 90’s. And oddly enough, the warming in the 90’s corresponded with warming on all the planets in our solar system during that time. You should read up on solar activity. Did you know the worlds climate is in constant flux naturally? We had a warm planet years ago and then ice ages, dramatic climate changes long before us. The manufactured data you quote is funded by leftists with agendas. Follow the money and use common sense..

        We are plummeting down the climate change hoax to the losts of your freedom and mine with only those at the top as the winners. What is climate change anyways? I lived through the 70’s and it was cooling. (Never happened). Then the. ‘90’s and it was warming. (Al Gore’s infamous hockey stick that never happened). Basically, mad-made climate change is an undefined concept that is spread through hysteria and whose only solution is government control and loss of freedom.

      • 0 avatar
        here4aSammich

        @Conundrum –

        You fail to show how ANY of what you claim is manmade, rather than just a natural cycle of the planet. There was a time in the 70s when we were told that an ice age was inevitable. Now we are told we only have 9 years left to tax the planet back into balance.

        That being said, I do think EVs are the future for most of us. Not everyone, unless range/charging issues can be solved. And they might.

        • 0 avatar
          4onthefloor

          I believe a small amount of climate change is man made, as you can’t just dump massive amounts of heat and pollutants into the atmosphere for 150 years with no ill effects, but I think the climate goes through cycles, just very long cycles. Not to worry though, an asteroid strike will give the greenies what they want. I think the aspect that should be focused on though is pollution. We can’t keep dumping plastic into the ocean with no consequences. They are finding micro plastics in all living things, and the amount in fish is alarming. They are even finding it at the poles. It must be airborne as well, because how else did it get there. Anything that darkens the snow contributes to to ice melting, and sea level rise. “plastics, it’s the future” No. No it’s not.

    • 0 avatar
      Peter Gazis

      Ollicat
      If man made climate change was a hoax. The Oil companies wouldn’t be funding radical rightwing media. Hell bent on discrediting our government, and overthrowing our democracy.

    • 0 avatar
      Peter Gazis

      Ollicat
      If man made climate change was a hoax. The Oil companies wouldn’t be funding radical rightwing media. Hell bent on discrediting our government, and overthrowing our democracy.

    • 0 avatar

      The people who were leaning this way in government have just been voted out of office.

      Notice ollicat didn’t say “climate change,” he said “manmade climate change.” Google “Grand Solar Minimum” to see the alternative view, and look at some of the record cold temperatures that back up the idea of a COOLING cycle going on now.

      The REAL motivation for the OEMs going electric is economics, pure and simple. Battery issues aside, the R&D on a BEV will end up being far less then an ICE vehicle.

      It’s the BATTERY issues that need to be overcome, from charging time to miles per charge to the charging stations themselves. WHEN, not IF, but WHEN one of these major issues is overcome, the tipping point to a BEV future will be near.

      And if the people touting “manmade climate change” really wanted to improve living conditions, there’d be a push for more nuclear and hydro power, both of which are zero-carbon. Wind and solar have their place but can’t do it all.

      • 0 avatar
        4onthefloor

        Can’t go nuclear, because no matter what safeguards are in place, they can be defeated, and one rogue person can cause a catastrophe. We won’t survive a Chernobyl here! One nuclear accident like that here, and a vast swath of land will be unlivable for hundreds of not thousands of years. All actions have consequences, and something must be done, but I certainly don’t trust someone who was a bartender several years ago, and just pulls something out of her a** to dictate our climate policy. We need people that can collaborate, and that seems impossible here. A my way or the highway approach doesn’t help anything, and will not solve this problem.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      “1.) the exponentially longer time to recharge fully.”
      Not really. Times are getting closer to gassing times through higher charge likes like 350kW and as batteries get lighter, the size of a battery to go 3 or 4 hundred miles can be smaller and thus quicker to charge for a given range.

      “2.) an enormous part of the population doesn’t part their car near a high speed charging port, or even where electricity is easy to get to”

      In the US and probably Canada, I think the majority of the population has electricity. More fast charge stations are coming online and newer battery technology can withstand regular quick charging. With 300 or 400 mile ranges, how often would you need to charge anyway.

      3.) What happens when the power goes out (I am talking to you California)

      Powerwall. Tesla is installing them at supercharger sites and you can get one at home as well. Where does your gas station get the power to run it’s electric pumps during a power failure?

      4.) what happens in the aftermath of a natural disaster like a hurricane or earthquake when electricity is out for weeks or months. Gas can be transported in

      Again, how do you pump the transported in gas? Those pumps run on electricity. Powerwall and the superchargers are getting them for backup. Plus, you could go somewhere, fill your car up with electricity, then return home to run your house with it.

      5.) If we all went to electric cars, our grid would collapse or have rolling blackouts. What fun!

      Utilities are preparing for it. Solar is under $2 per kW now, so more homes are getting it. I’m planning on it.

      6.) if we build more powerplants (which we should have already started), we need more coal, nuclear, and natural gas, which kind of defeats the purpose. wind and solar is not going to scratch the surface

      No we don’t. One new addition to the power grid is the concept of surplus power storage systems that use batteries (and can use heavier battery tech than vehicles) and water to store power during offpeak times. Wind power is getting more efficient and powerful. Windmills are up to 14mW now. Less than 100 of those off the coast out of site in the ocean could replace the NH Seabrook Nuclear plant. 43 to replace Vermont Yankee nuclear. They’re still improving them. More homes are getting solar as well and my local utility is building solar farms. They’re cheaper than fossil fuel electricity.

      “Why is nobody in government or the auto industry even talking about any of these issues?”

      They both are and they are doing things about it.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      @ollicat:
      “an enormous part of the population doesn’t part their car near a high speed charging port, or even where electricity is easy to get to”

      [facepalm]

      You used an electrical outlet capable of slow-charging your car to post this comment. (If you’re using a phone/laptop, you used the outlet to charge your device.)

      Fast-charging is only useful for road-tripping in EVs.

      Otherwise, the vehicle charges at home while you sleep. How fast your charger needs to be depends on how long your commute is.

      A 110V will work for some people (WFH, retired people, people with short commutes. etc). A dryer/stove outlet is plenty for people with longer commutes, like my wife’s 1-hour-each-way pre-COVID commute.

      You were mostly right for the EVs of the 1990s and early 2000s — those things were mostly short-range homebrew not-so-hot-rods running off of golf cart batteries. For EVs and PHEVs from 2010-onward, though, you need to update your knowledge in order to be able to criticize them accurately. Go test-drive one, and get back to us.

      That said, if you don’t want an EV, don’t buy one. Nobody will force you to give up your old-fashioned vehicle here in the USA. My neighbor has a Model A, and he still drives it. You can do what you like.

  • avatar
    ollicat

    That was helpful.

  • avatar

    Only in 2025 there will be the new POTUS and everything will change again, including Praetorian Guard. In America I would not plan for more than two years. In 2035 we may run out of oil and gas and all ride horses and Fusion reactor will be just 15 tearful years away.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      The potential of fusion is why the ITER reactor project was started decades ago.

      As an American, I’m ashamed that the USA isn’t leading the project and has barely participated since 2016. ITER may or may not be a success but, either way, we’ve ceded leadership in world-changing science to the Rest Of The World.

      Your tax savings at work!

      [facepalm]

  • avatar

    But seriously, GM is simply afraid of being cancelled.

    • 0 avatar
      RHD

      If their market share keeps shrinking like it has been for the last few decades, it’s only a matter of time.
      Hyundai is eating GM’s lunch. Their top-heavy management isn’t getting the job done.

    • 0 avatar
      Old_WRX

      ILO,

      You’re not saying it’s just virtue signalling to keep the cancel creeps off their back? Probably so. As such it is just so much hot air.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      “But seriously, GM is simply afraid of being cancelled.”

      “Cancel culture” is also known as a boycotting things consumers don’t like.

      This is how consumers exert power in a capitalist economy: by voting with their wallets.

      Anyone could have told you that making half of your potential customers angry is bad for business. In the US, companies have the right to engage in divisive politics — and customers have a the right to chose to take their business elsewhere.

      If you don’t like having your business cut in half, stop making half of your potential customers angry.

      • 0 avatar
        4onthefloor

        Luke,
        Well said, and that’s where I stand too, but unless the party in power learns what the word compromise means, where we shop will depend on the party you belong to. I hope it doesn’t come down to Republican and democratic dentists and the like, but if there is no compromise, that’s what we’ll end up with. When a President asks for unity, but shows none, it’s a very bad sign for our future. I’m no fan of civil war, but something has to give here. Both sides are evil, it’s just that one is less so in my opinion. Well never get anything done if this cr** continues.

      • 0 avatar
        Old_WRX

        Luke42,

        ‘“Cancel culture” is also known as a boycotting things consumers don’t like.’

        Not the same thing at all. Boycotting is just not buying a product. “Cancelling” involves a direct attack on a person perceived as having “incorrect” opinions and has destroyed many people’s careers/lives.

        Boycotting is a reasonably legitimate form of protest. “Cancelling” is a vicious and unwarranted attack on someone for not having the same views as the attacker (usually with some claim that the victim is somehow harming the attacker by disagreeing with him).

    • 0 avatar

      What I am saying is that in 2024 there will be new president and GM will change its mind again. Unlike Toyota they plan for 2 years, from one election to another. US politics become absolutely unpredictable.

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    I don’t see the end of ICE anytime in the foreseeable future. There are many situations better suited to biofuel powered ICE powertrains.

    What I would support is transformation to EV on the merit of the product. Let people choose to own and operate EV. We are well into this movement. Don’t force it.

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      “What I would support is transformation to EV on the merit of the product. Let people choose to own and operate EV. We are well into this movement. Don’t force it.”

      That’s already happening.

      Tesla can’t make cars fast enough to satisfy the demand (they have long waiting lists), so everyone else needs to step up too.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    Toyota is the #1 or #2 vehicle company in the world. Look at the percentage of EV’s and hybrids in their model line up. That’s the real market. Much more accurate than someone who had to work off five “vice president” qualifiers off their name as they climbed the corporate ladder to be become just “vice president”.

  • avatar
    Old_WRX

    Maybe simethicone would help them. (Sorry, someone had to do it.)

  • avatar
    ThomasSchiffer

    Despite government incentives, people in my country are hardly buying EVs. The typical driver wants driving flexibility which means stable ranges and quick refueling. Furthermore, most Germans do not have a garage and park their cars on the streets. Many apartment complexes in cities do not have garages. Where should millions of drivers charge their cars when the EV infrastructure is not there and hardly any progress is being made.

    It also makes no sense to own an EV in this country, which thanks to that disastrous energy policy from our Great Leader/Eternal President (Merkel or IM Erika as she was known in East Germany where she was minister for propaganda and agitation), has burdened us with the highest electricity prices in the Western world. Public charging stations in Munich, which are slow chargers to begin with, charge anywhere from 80 cents per kW/h (!!!) to 1,05 Euros per kW/h. Outrageous.

    I’m sticking to my trustworthy 2007 GL320 CDI 4Matic which recently surpassed 400,000 km and be driven at high speeds on the Autobahn without any range anxiety whatsoever.

  • avatar
    TheEndlessEnigma

    GM can “offer”EV’s, I’m not buying. But then I’m also not a GM customer and never will be.

  • avatar
    redgolf

    Germany will require all petrol stations to provide electric car charging
    “Internationally this puts Germany in the leading group of battery electric vehicle support.”
    Germany’s announcement follows a French plan to boost electric car sales announced last week by President Macron.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-autos/germany-will-require-all-petrol-stations-to-provide-electric-car-charging-idUSKBN23B1WU
    Someone is counting on the EV future!

    • 0 avatar
      ThomasSchiffer

      This enforced law is unrealistic. Where will these electric cars charge? Many gas stations here are so small and don’t even offer parking spaces. This might work for gas stations along the Autobahns, but many city gas stations are tiny with no parking opportunities.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    OK,

    A) Kudos to Dane Parker for the real steps GM is taking in the real world:

    “Under Parker’s leadership, GM has reduced its manufacturing carbon intensity by 20 percent – three years ahead of its goal – and is an EPA-recognized leader in energy efficiency and renewable energy utilization, including achieving seven consecutive EPA Energy Star Partner of the Year awards.”

    https://tinyurl.com/yyqbx8ca

    B) If you are at all interested in this topic, read the Free Press story linked above (repeated here):

    https://tinyurl.com/y5c2wt3h

    C) This ‘announcement’ cynically does three things:

    C.1) ‘Moderates’ expectations – GM is not the first automaker to mention ~’2035′ timing, and they are already qualifying it and tempering it and flexing into 2040. [Mary Barra will reach GM’s used-to-be-mandatory CEO retirement age at the end of 2026.]

    C.2) Greases the skids for requesting government money – starting with ‘charging infrastructure’ [“This is going to take the effort of a lot of people and A LOT OF GOVERNMENTS to get there” in case you missed that part]. Despite the handwaving of some posters here, there are very real issues with EV adoption for those without garages – which public money could help with and oh by the way what other money grabs can we look for down the road (this is deep in GM’s DNA).

    C.3) Fools 30% of the public, 62% of journalists and 80% of GM’s customer base. [And feeds talking points to 97.8% of politicians.]

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greenwashing.asp

    D) The plan to re-use Ultium batteries makes perfect sense.

    “GM plans for 100% of its electric vehicle batteries to be reused as other forms of energy storage. The Ultium system, for example, is designed to be repairable, so “we don’t intend for any of our batteries to be disposable,” Parker said.” (from the Free Press article)

    TL;DR: ‘We at GM aspire to be – two decades from now – where Tesla will be approximately two years from now. We count this as leadership and you should too. [Now smile and open your wallet to the nice taxing authority – we’ll get our cut directly from the Treasury.]’

  • avatar
    jkross22

    When will the shorts come for GM? And will anyone care?

  • avatar
    schmitt trigger

    @TomasSchiffer;

    1.05 Euro per kW/hr? Wow.
    Does that include VAT?

    • 0 avatar
      ThomasSchiffer

      Yes. We have 19% VAT here.

      Gasoline and Diesel fuel have four taxes. Mineral Oil Tax, Eco Tax, 19% VAT Tax and since January 1st of this year the dreaded CO2 carbon tax. All combined, these four taxes make you bleed for each liter of gasoline/Diesel.

      Assuming a liter of gasoline costs a ‘cheap’ 1.20 Euros per liter, the government will earn 90 cents per liter. Outrageous and a rip off. The eco terrorists in the EU have made no secret of their desire to eliminate individual mobility and force everyone into trains, public transportation and bicycles. The upcoming EURO7 emissions laws are the death of gasoline/Diesel engines as they basically require cars to be 99% emissions free. It’s a disgusting way of forcing automakers to only produce EVs.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    “gas-free by 2040”

    Simple. Low fibre,avoid spices,and Gas-X.

  • avatar
    4onthefloor

    When electric vehicles can be recharged as fast as a vehicle can currently fill up with gas, I’ll be a player. I envision long lines until then, unless there are parking lots full of charging stations everywhere. I think because I grew up with ICE vehicles, I will always favor them, but I know electric will power our dystopian future. Glad I’m getting older, as I would rather not be around with what’s coming. Social credit score, facial recognition, tax by mile driven, so unless we can claim our freedoms back our clueless leadership, on both sides, have a bleak future in store for us all. They seem to embrace misery, but I ain’t having it. Whatever any of them tell me to do, I know the correct path is exactly the opposite. Electric is the future, but it has no soul.

  • avatar
    Oberkanone

    Paying billions to FIAT and Peugeot allowed FIAT and Peugeot to finance their wedding. Reorganizing after bankruptcy. Shedding market share like my dog sheds hair. It’s all in the past. This is the new GM.
    I wish GM luck.

  • avatar
    stuki

    Everyone should hold hands and look to be looking to be something sometime way out i the future.

    After all, looking to be looking to be something, is pretty easy. As opposed to something, like, hard and, like, stuff. Like, you know, building decent actual cars at decent prices. Much easier to have sell overpriced coffee and handbags, to halfwits on Manhattan. While looking to look to be something. Sometime. Maybe.

  • avatar
    neebme

    GM going gas free sounds like a perfect recipe for a second bankruptcy. We’ll see if the government bails them out again.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: “Our egos recover easily” Wealthy psychologists would disagree. LOL
  • Lou_BC: Experience is what you gain when you try to do something that requires experience.
  • ToolGuy: Things change – sometimes quickly. (Is 15 years a long time?) https://apnews.com/article/...
  • ToolGuy: @ILO, preview of our future: https://californiaglobe.com/lo cal/san-francisco/exclusive...
  • ToolGuy: “OK, then.” https://youtu.be/wahLIbwZTLQ?t =18

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber