Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    EPA Announces A Roll-Back On Obama's Fuel Efficiency Regulations

      You can guess who likes and despises this

    In a move that was expected to happen soon, the EPA announced that it plans to revise the fuel-efficiency regulations that were approved during the President Obama administration. 

    “The Obama EPA’s determination was wrong. Obama’s EPA cut the midterm evaluation process short with politically charged expediency, made assumptions about the standards that didn’t comport with reality and set the standards too high,” said EPA chief Scott Pruitt in a statement today. 

    The statement goes on to say that the agency will begin working on new standards for cars for 2022-2025 with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    The regulations that were finalized during Obama's tenure would require automakers to have fuel economy fleet average of over 50 mpg by 2025. Automakers have been pushing for the standards to be rolled back as it would cause vehicles to become more expensive, and consumers aren't buying fuel-efficient vehicles.

    “This was the right decision. To ensure ongoing fuel economy improvement, the wisest course of action is to keep new vehicles affordable so more consumers can replace an older car with a new vehicle that uses much less fuel -- and offers more safety features," said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers - a trade group that represents a dozen automakers including GM and Ford.

    Unsurprisingly, this move has brought forth criticism from both consumer and environmental groups.

    “EPA’s decision defies the robust record and years of review that show these targets are reasonable and appropriate,” said David Friedman, director of cars and products policy and analysis for Consumers Union, the advocacy division of Consumer Reports.

    “Undermining these consumer protections will cost consumers more at the pump while fulfilling the wishes of the auto industry.”

    The EPA also announced that it was considering revoking California's waiver that allows it to set its own emission rules that are tougher than the federal regulations. Aside from California, 12 other states have adopted these standards that together account for a third of car sales in the U.S.  Since President Donald Trump entered the white house, the relationship between the EPA and California has become very strained. California officials have vowed to fight back if the EPA goes forward.

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)



    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Personally, I have never been a fan of CAFE.  I do think the last administration's EPA went too far.  The problem with CAFE is that it tells automakers to do what consumers should do instead: buy the right vehicle for their needs.  If gas prices rise  above $4 again, then consumers (when they can) will dump the gas-guzzling SUVs for fuel-sipping hybrids or even electric vehicles.  The gas tax (or better still, a VAT on crude oil and its distillates) is a far superior way to improve fuel economy through markets and consumer response rather than through federal mandates.

    Auto safety, on the other hand, does not have a pricing mechanism.  Hence the need for (most of) those regulations to stand as is.  I doubt that this administration's EPA will end CAFE altogether since that would require a new law to replace the one from 1975.  But I will welcome the end of CAFE, since it is heavily biased towards trucks and against large sedans from the get-go.  One last thing: CARB exists for good reason (LA smog is a real health issue), but they can also buy (and do) cars that currently meet tougher European standards since many automakers already in many respects meet them overseas.

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hallelujah, it is about time cold hard reality sets in where government involvement is concerned.  Also I fully and robustly support curbing California.  Bunch of loons out there far removed from normalcy.  A 50-state standard is best for the country.

    No one can regulate hearts, minds, desires.  I say if you have the money... SPEND IT HOW YOU WISH.  Is that a radical idear in 2018?

     

     

    • Downvote 4

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    13 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

      I say if you have the money... SPEND IT HOW YOU WISH.  Is that a radical idear in 2018?

     

     

     

    Sure...but isnt that how the bubble burst in 2009?

    13 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

    No one can regulate hearts, minds, desires. 

    Great...but didnt deregularization of Wallstreet in the 1980s by a Republican cause all that greed and shyte to hit the fan and send all of our jobs elsewhere and in the process creating a throw-out society which eventually led to the aforementioned bubble...oh...the de-regularization of mortgages in the 1990s by a Democratic also lead to that and now this current guy in power wants to bring back the jobs...

     

     I guess it would be a radical idear....

    To have no limits JUST BECAUSE we can...because 'Merica Godammit!

    Related image

     

    because obviously we humans have self-control and our leaders and our barter entrepreneurs care about the welfare of our being and are responsible and in no way do all of us as a species destroy the very phoquing planet we inhabit... 

    8)

     

    I dedicate this song to you, because birthday

     

    Edited by oldshurst442
    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Fuel efficiency?

    Those targets COULD be met.

    Question is...there are a couple of questions actually...

    1. Do we as a society WANT to change?

    2. Do we as a society WANT to sacrifice?

    3. Do we as a society ACCEPT the responsibility and do we ACKNOWLEDGE the shyte we are doing? 

    Or do we as a society just say, "not my problem" and just go out of are way to do what the phoque we want to do and just damn the phoquing planet because either

    1. #fakenews

    2. Wont be around when it is truly too late

     

    I aint a tree hugger by any means

     

    But...

    Related image

     

    I cant seem to forget the message in that 1960s movie either...

     

    I love me some 707 horses.

    But I could live with just 1

    Image result for pinto horse

    if it would come down to it.  If it meant that we needed to. 

    Im not sure our selfish society would want to do the same. 

    *SIGH*

    And no...its not all about doom and gloom.

    But the thing is..going forward into OUR future...the whole phoquing planet has become selfish. 

    Oh well...not my problem I guess...

    1. #Fakenews

    2. Ill be loooooong gone to see if doomsday is truly a reality or not. 

     

    Edited by oldshurst442
    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think automakers could hit the standard with more electrification, which would make cars more expensive, but they can price war it out and cut profits if they wanted, none of these car makers are hurting.   That being said I could see keeping the 54 mpg standard but pushing it back to 2030 to give carmakers more time.

    I also think adding a 25 cent per gallon federal gas tax would promote fuel efficiency better than CAFE, and we need tax revenue to pay roads since the Gov't has such a ridiculous deficit.  

    And that being said, what the EPA wants to do doesn't matter because California doesn't want to play this game.  California will win any legal battle because CARB was there first, and there is ZERO PERCENT chance that car companies make a car they can't sell in California (or states with it's emission laws) because 1/3rd of all new cars are under California rule, no one is throwing away 1/3 of their volume.  

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 3

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    43 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    also think adding a 25 cent per gallon federal gas tax would promote fuel efficiency better than CAFE, and we need tax revenue to pay roads since the Gov't has such a ridiculous deficit.  

    I believe a tax would would have a similar effect as well. However the government would just squander any additional revenue from the tax. Knowing government, they would probably use the tax to start a new/additional agency devoted to how to force more fuel efficiency. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 4/2/2018 at 7:59 PM, ocnblu said:

    Hallelujah, it is about time cold hard reality sets in where government involvement is concerned.  Also I fully and robustly support curbing California.  Bunch of loons out there far removed from normalcy.  A 50-state standard is best for the country.

    No one can regulate hearts, minds, desires.  I say if you have the money... SPEND IT HOW YOU WISH.  Is that a radical idear in 2018?

     

     

     

    Well, I kinda agree with this....:P

     

    In the last 10 years, we have improved things by leaps and bounds. EV is growing, and is slowly getting there. There are already many cars that can reach 50mpg now......

    But here's the catch-unless we want to start paying close to 50k per new car, the tech needs to be able to play catch up. A Cobalt at 16k in 2010 is now nearly 26k (Cruze) in 2018. Cheapest new cars are creeping close to 20k. Someone forgot at some point to realize people need to pay for these too...and we wonder why everyone is leasing now! New car sales are close to a crashing point....might be nice to soften the blow a bit. If prices are able to drop some, it will bring more folks in to the market that might not have been there before.

    Also, with the growth of EV, this also allows it to grow with different ways to power up. It allows for more solar or wind, or heck-even the burning of trash! Time to start really putting coal to rest.......

     

    I am not worried....the automakers will continue to look for better ways to improve their products (including gas mileage) Also, gas mileage will lessen a bit as more EVs start hitting the road as well.....

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I am going to enjoy this...watching stupid people do stupid things means we have the right to laugh at them. Rest of the world will pass us by methinks. Tesla is starting to go in the tank and will not recover IMHO.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/facing-u-s-tariffs-china-plans-countermeasures-1521632332

    Just like trade wars are coming back to haunt us, this will come back to haunt us.

    On 4/2/2018 at 9:58 PM, smk4565 said:

    I think automakers could hit the standard with more electrification, which would make cars more expensive, but they can price war it out and cut profits if they wanted, none of these car makers are hurting.   That being said I could see keeping the 54 mpg standard but pushing it back to 2030 to give carmakers more time.

    I also think adding a 25 cent per gallon federal gas tax would promote fuel efficiency better than CAFE, and we need tax revenue to pay roads since the Gov't has such a ridiculous deficit.  

    And that being said, what the EPA wants to do doesn't matter because California doesn't want to play this game.  California will win any legal battle because CARB was there first, and there is ZERO PERCENT chance that car companies make a car they can't sell in California (or states with it's emission laws) because 1/3rd of all new cars are under California rule, no one is throwing away 1/3 of their volume.  

    California and the rest of the world.

    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    23 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    @ocnblu Narrow thinking and destruction of the planet. Greed destroys all and sadly idiots wanting to live in the past have put idiots in office that also want to live in the past and have no ability to think about the future.

    Education is the great equalizer and yet without education we have caste systems, racism and destruction of our planet and immediate home around us. 

    Take off your hate to change horse with blinders on approach to life and get out and travel and see the world. You just might realize that the world is a worthwhile place to live in and take care of by living in balance with the ecosystem that humans seem to be hell bent on destroying.

    Delay of the super high MPG would have been just fine by 10-15 years. Sadly morons that want to believe in their own faith of something rather than science will hurt more than help this world we all live in.

    I hope you can enjoy your life when leaded gas comes back to clog your air and world with smog.

    I would not mind fossil fueled vehicles if their proponents would pay for the foreign wars, the cost of escorting tankers, the moral cost of doing business with people like the highly corrupt Saudi's, the need to maintain a political alliance with apartheid Israel so we have at least one friend in the region, the environmental costs of fracking, the heath costs of polluted air, and the like.

    All of this goes unaddressed by the fossil fuel advocates so I guess they are conceding this argument to people on my side of the fence. Morally this decision by the administration is ethically is vile IMHO.

    But again, in that case, if those costs were up front costs, fuel would be $25 a gallon at least...and electric cars would win in a free market world of actual realized costs.

    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    On 4/2/2018 at 6:58 PM, smk4565 said:

    also think adding a 25 cent per gallon federal gas tax would promote fuel efficiency better than CAFE, and we need tax revenue to pay roads since the Gov't has such a ridiculous deficit.  

    I believe a tax would would have a similar effect as well. However the government would just squander any additional revenue from the tax. Knowing government, they would probably use the tax to start a new/additional agency devoted to how to force more fuel efficiency. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I don't know why when I tried to reply that posted what I posted earlier but it did so now it's there twice I guess.

     

    Anyway what I was going to say is you can't condemn fossil-fuel because it was the best option for a hundred years. Now other Technologies are getting better equipped to replace fossil fuel. We are not there yet but one day we will be.  Remember hydrogen fuel cells was a big thing? Don't see much about that anymore do we. Then there was the CNG That was supposed to be much better. Don't see much about that now either do we. It does appear electric will be do way things go however we are not ready for all electric yet. And it may be another 50 years before all electric is ready to replace fossil fuel. Our best thing going now for weaning yourself off of fossil fuel is the hybrids which helped use less fuel. One day I am sure we'll get there, however technology and infrastructure also have to be ready. That being said you shouldn't condemn people for loving their big gas-guzzling vehicles and supporting terrorists because as of today that's just how things work.

     

    With all that said I still believe government intervention is not the best answer. I have rarely seen government involved in anything that it did not follow up. So that means as far as I am concerned the government can take the EPA and stick it up its bleep.

    Edited by Scout

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    6 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Imagine how fuel efficient an F-150 could be if, instead of inflating it as quickly as American asses are getting fat, they kept it the size of 20 years ago. 

    I'm going to guess you're talking about weight, because in your example, the dimensional differences are about 5%. Weights are hugely up, but that has nothing to do with physical size here.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    I'm going to guess you're talking about weight, because in your example, the dimensional differences are about 5%. Weights are hugely up, but that has nothing to do with physical size here.

    Maybe it's a combination of larger wheel size and bigger grilles, badges, lights, etc but they certainly appear to be much larger.. 

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    5 minutes ago, balthazar said:

    I'm going to guess you're talking about weight, because in your example, the dimensional differences are about 5%. Weights are hugely up, but that has nothing to do with physical size here.

    I would have to agree as the weight has BALLOONED since all the required safety gear that has pushed up weight and roll over protection.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Don't discount the weight contribution of all the sensors and cameras & 18 airbags and TPMS and adaptive CC and rain-sensing wipers and .....

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    22 hours ago, dfelt said:

    @ocnblu Narrow thinking and destruction of the planet. Greed destroys all and sadly idiots wanting to live in the past have put idiots in office that also want to live in the past and have no ability to think about the future.

    Education is the great equalizer and yet without education we have caste systems, racism and destruction of our planet and immediate home around us. 

    Take off your hate to change horse with blinders on approach to life and get out and travel and see the world. You just might realize that the world is a worthwhile place to live in and take care of by living in balance with the ecosystem that humans seem to be hell bent on destroying.

    Delay of the super high MPG would have been just fine by 10-15 years. Sadly morons that want to believe in their own faith of something rather than science will hurt more than help this world we all live in.

    I hope you can enjoy your life when leaded gas comes back to clog your air and world with smog.

    Calling people idiots and morons does not elevate you to genius status, David.  The previous administration rushed these unrealistic standards through at the eleventh hour, knowing full well the ramifications.  And the day of reckoning has come.  A rollback is simply common sense.  It allows car makers to sell what people want to spend money on.  Any business that does not give the customer what they want will eventually die.  If someone wants a Volt or Bolt and does not mind being tethered to the cord, let them have it.  If someone wants a Suburban with 6.2L of manly power, let them have it.  Since Drew has let this post of yours stand and has taken down my post condemning your personal attack on me and millions of others, I will keep posting in my defense until more people can see my point of view here.  I am sure this will not be here the next time I check this board, but hopefully the censors here will be asleep long enough so that somebody sees this.

    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    Calling people idiots and morons does not elevate you to genius status, David.  The previous administration rushed these unrealistic standards through at the eleventh hour, knowing full well the ramifications.  And the day of reckoning has come.  A rollback is simply common sense.  It allows car makers to sell what people want to spend money on.  Any business that does not give the customer what they want will eventually die.  If someone wants a Volt or Bolt and does not mind being tethered to the cord, let them have it.  If someone wants a Suburban with 6.2L of manly power, let them have it.  Since Drew has let this post of yours stand and has taken down my post condemning your personal attack on me and millions of others, I will keep posting in my defense until more people can see my point of view here.  I am sure this will not be here the next time I check this board, but hopefully the censors here will be asleep long enough so that somebody sees this.

    I am asking Drew to leave this up. I disagree vehemently with Bill but will fight tooth and nail to let him express his viewpoint.

    Also, let me be clear-I actually want the 6.2 L of Suburban Manly suburban thing to survive in some way shape or form, as does David-you won't find a bigger supporter of SUV's here than David.

    From a personal standpoint, I would love to see humanity come together, reclaim the Sahara, and use sunlight to grow algae based or plant based stock for liquid fueled internal combustion vehicles. Would love to see things like the Boeing 777 and Airbus 350 keep flying even after the stocks of natural petroleum are (eventually) depleted.

    And now for the counter point...just because people want to spend their money on something does not make it moral of right. There would be a huge market for child porn if it was legal.

    Edited by A Horse With No Name
    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    17 hours ago, Scout said:

    Remember hydrogen fuel cells was a big thing? Don't see much about that anymore do we.

    I believe both Toyota and Honda have production cars out in California. 

    I'm still a firm believer that eventually, when the process gets much more efficient and cheaper, that it will be the real way of the future. 

    11 hours ago, balthazar said:

    I'm going to guess you're talking about weight, because in your example, the dimensional differences are about 5%. Weights are hugely up, but that has nothing to do with physical size here.

    I think it's dimensional-ly because CAFE has to do with it's footprint and fuel economy. That's why the F150 is as wide as it can be without putting the marker lights on it like the HD/SDs have on the cab(and Raptor in the grille). 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    Calling people idiots and morons does not elevate you to genius status, David.

    It's just ironic that he has a Suburban and Trailblazer SS... Just say'n... I also think an Escalade.. 

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    i have to laugh at the thin-skinned hypocrisy of Mr Blu, though....he slags on Californians and left wingers constantly, yet takes slight at any criticism of right wingers. 

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    12 hours ago, balthazar said:

    I'm going to guess you're talking about weight, because in your example, the dimensional differences are about 5%. Weights are hugely up, but that has nothing to do with physical size here.

    Weight, yes, but also capabilities.  I'm not against increasing the capabilities of the 150/1500 series trucks, however there is no lower alternative for those who do not need such capacity... the mall runners... etc.  A trimmer F150 / Sierra 1000 would be fine for a lot of these McMansion garage queen trucks. Heck, still load them up with the Lincoln level goodies, but they don't need the frame capacity to tow 10,000 lbs.  The mid-size trucks are still too small for those who purchase the full sizers. 

     I'm exactly in that demographic.  I want a truck capable of putting a motorcycle in the back, but I don't need huge towing capacity.  At the same time, I need a real back seat that can be used for long distance travel, the Colorado/Ranger/Taco can't really offer that. The F150 is overkill. 

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By Drew Dowdell
      Does anyone else notice a big drop in fuel economy when using the air conditioning? For people with automatic climate control do you ever manually turn off the air conditioner? 
    • By dfelt
      The Trump Administration and the EPA officials have scrapped all further talks with California and canceled the $929 million in federal funds for a California high-speed rail project.
      California's Governor has responded that this is in response to California leading a 16 state coalition challenge to President Trump's national emergency to take funds from the defense department and apply it to building a wall from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.
      California has already filed suit to block the Trump administration proposal to roll back federal fuel economy targets for 2022-2025.
      CARB Chair Mary Nichols is on record that they are willing to work with the auto industry in giving more flexibility to comply with the greenhouse gas limits. This came as the White house administration instructed the EPA to break off talks before Christmas and have not responded to any suggested areas of compromise by California and the 19 states they are representing nor the auto industry suggestions for compromise.
      While FCA declined to comment, GM and the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers did not respond to a request for comment. Ford has stated they are very disappointed in the failure of continued talks. Joe Hinrichs, Ford's president of global operations said in a statement: "The auto industry needs regulatory certainty, not protracted litigation."
      The auto industry is on record as opposing freezing the emissions / fuel efficiency standards to 2020 levels but also want relief from the roughly 5 percent annual carbon reduction targets for all vehicle classes fuel efficiency.
    • By dfelt
      The Trump Administration and the EPA officials have scrapped all further talks with California and canceled the $929 million in federal funds for a California high-speed rail project.
      California's Governor has responded that this is in response to California leading a 16 state coalition challenge to President Trump's national emergency to take funds from the defense department and apply it to building a wall from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.
      California has already filed suit to block the Trump administration proposal to roll back federal fuel economy targets for 2022-2025.
      CARB Chair Mary Nichols is on record that they are willing to work with the auto industry in giving more flexibility to comply with the greenhouse gas limits. This came as the White house administration instructed the EPA to break off talks before Christmas and have not responded to any suggested areas of compromise by California and the 19 states they are representing nor the auto industry suggestions for compromise.
      While FCA declined to comment, GM and the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers did not respond to a request for comment. Ford has stated they are very disappointed in the failure of continued talks. Joe Hinrichs, Ford's president of global operations said in a statement: "The auto industry needs regulatory certainty, not protracted litigation."
      The auto industry is on record as opposing freezing the emissions / fuel efficiency standards to 2020 levels but also want relief from the roughly 5 percent annual carbon reduction targets for all vehicle classes fuel efficiency.

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Ford is launching an investigation into its own emissions and fuel economy certification process according to a statement released by the company.  The issue was brought to light back in September when a number of employees reported concerns through Ford's internal Speak Up channel.
      The concern surrounds Road Load, a vehicle-specific resistance level used in dynamometer testing. Too much or too little resistance will alter the results of the emissions and fuel economy. Road load is determined through engineering estimates that are then validated on the track.  Ford is evaluating changes to the road load determination process.
      The company is quick to point out that none of the potential concerns involve the use of defeat devices and that no determination has been made on the need to restate Ford's fuel economy or emissions labels. 
      Ford has hired an outside firm to conduct an investigation into Ford's current processes and has shared their findings with both the EPA and CARB.
      The first vehicle to be re-evaluated is the 2019 Ford Ranger with others to follow.
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Ford is launching an investigation into its own emissions and fuel economy certification process according to a statement released by the company.  The issue was brought to light back in September when a number of employees reported concerns through Ford's internal Speak Up channel.
      The concern surrounds Road Load, a vehicle-specific resistance level used in dynamometer testing. Too much or too little resistance will alter the results of the emissions and fuel economy. Road load is determined through engineering estimates that are then validated on the track.  Ford is evaluating changes to the road load determination process.
      The company is quick to point out that none of the potential concerns involve the use of defeat devices and that no determination has been made on the need to restate Ford's fuel economy or emissions labels. 
      Ford has hired an outside firm to conduct an investigation into Ford's current processes and has shared their findings with both the EPA and CARB.
      The first vehicle to be re-evaluated is the 2019 Ford Ranger with others to follow.

      View full article
  • Posts

    • Most likely the Valiant was equipped with a leaning tower of power.  Maybe it was a close race. 
    • Really?  You just don't get it.
    • Yeah,  I couldn't imagine buying a vehicle without actually seeing it in person or test driving it.   When I bought my CPO JGC in 2017,  I did a bunch of research online and checked the inventories of the various dealers around Phoenix and zeroed in on a specific vehicle that had the right equipment/mileage/price combo that I was looking for.  Didn't seriously consider any other brands.   Then I went to the dealer on a Friday afternoon and asked to see and test drive that specific vehicle.      I was time bound in some sense in that I was in the midst of moving to Ohio and my old Jeep was dying, so I moved pretty quickly.  A lot of people buy used cars on eBay and other sites and have them shipped to them, haven't tried that yet, not sure if I would.  
    • So true and it made the Auto Shows more relevant as you actually would go to see the new releases and check them out. Now it is just a single stop sales athon mess. I will say having the autos on hand to test drive is much better than in the past. One thing I have never gotten is those that refuse to even go to a dealership to test drive and check out the auto, do 100% online even the purchase and wait for the dealership to come to them to drop off the auto and then they bitch about the auto when they could have saved buyers remorse by getting off their ass and into the dealership. I DO NOT feel sorry for such lazy people.
  • Social Stream

  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...