balthazar

Anyway we can get California to literally join France? As in move it next door? You cannot DO this: force people who legally own an approved consumer good as vital as a vehicle to suddenly be severely limited in its use. For one, the value of these items would instantly plummet to near zero, rendering these people without a trade-in (Would be no surprise to me if CA suggests a special tax to write every ICE owner a compensatory check). The only way this passes general acceptance is to allow grandfathering / attrition... over the course of many decades. Gov't can only ban the production of NEW ICEs... just as there are no retro-active vehicular equipment laws (that I'm aware of)- even after 50 years of federal vehicle regulation. The 'next step' then comes to question- what about people traveling into CA? Or moving to CA? And what about semi-trucks- would they be exempt?

I remember going thru inspection in the late '80s in a '53 Merc- the emission standard they tested to was "1968 and earlier". Don't recall if it passed (was a buddy's car). Moltar- by percentages, 14M vehicles isn't much, and I agree with your statement. But the greenies are going to knash & wail over "14 million" and predict the End of the World. dfelt- ending all emissions may be backed up via scientific testing, but I sense more knashing & wailing and political finger pointing. Should be... wearysome.

I have no problem with it, but note that USAToday reported in 2015 that the amount of cars on the road in the US 25 years or older is estimated to be 14 million. 'Historic'- registered vehicles in NJ are exempt from any sort of inspection. Tho I would have been highly intrigued to see my '40 go thru inspection.

FIFY : OLDEST car. Most HD trucks are diesels, which pay markedly more in fuel tax. They also get driven more than sports cars per year and per vehicle lifetime and get worse MPG. They pay far more than any sports car/limited use vehicle despite a CTS-V having a $1000 GG tax. It's fair.

Also having many friends with HD trucks, when gas hit north of $4, NONE of them bought a 2nd vehicle. I didn't either. These trucks do a lot more work than you might think in non-farm locales. They do pay- in fuel tax, same as even the tiniest gas car does. As Gov't analysts have already expressed numerous times- the issue with increasing MPG is less & less fuel tax collected, when infrastructure work costs on go up & up. This is why they are focusing on hitting EV drivers big time. And you thought you'd be rewarded for being green. And there is no hiding of anything; anyone at anytime can easily research online sources to find out real world MPG on HD trucks. It's not a secret. What about people who drive 100 MPH or more, or take turns at .9 Gs or more? They're putting far more wear on the road than those doing the speed limit (esp in cornering); either de-engineer all cars to a limit of .80 lateral acceleration, or limit all cars to 75 MPH to save the infrastructure. Get some nice tall-sidewall tires on cars, too, nice & squishy. And ban anything over 400 HP- not necessary. OR... if you prefer; engineer the black boxes to tabulate aggressive driving and bill drivers monthly. Your choice... you know: so it's "fair". The latter is already in place.

Ten Million times 'YES'. HD / Class 2 vehicle buyers know what they want, know about the vehicles moreso than any other buyer class, have never raised consumer complaints about MPG (which is very tightly comparable)... yet bureaucrats are sure they need 'saving'. With American society now regulated up, down & sideways, lawmakers must justify their jobs by doing something. Anything non or underegulated 'must' become so, to 'move forward' and 'protect the people' [and generate a revenue stream].

Friend of mine is close- has a '68 NYer hardtop. An ugly, ugly thing.

Freightliner's Supertruck was a 2015 concept vehicle, it's not in production. Peterbilt's Supertruck from 2014 posted very similar gains in MPG, but I don't think it's in production either.

It doesn't; I merely posed the question.

I like those fuselage body MoPars- tried once to buy a '69 Polara hardtop coupe with the SuprLite. Looked at another one about 10 years ago. Probably the last good looking full-size MoPars until the very late '90s/'00s.

I for one have not called any of these Company men mentioned here a 'shyster'. The bait & switch some could argue Tesla is doing on the 3 is indeed what has been seen before... tho at a somewhat higher level (OEM vs. dealer). The difference IMO is announcing the base MSRP, taking 3xxK preorders on that MSRP, then a considerable lapse of time passes before an announcement that a 20-40% price increase is instead what's going to happen... still before sales start. To my knowledge, the product didn't change during that time, and I acknowledge that the OEM has said base priced cars will be available down the line, but things change. Remember; Tesla once said it would be a profitable company building only 300 cars/year. My point remains; with no information for a long time on the Model 3 available other than the price, why didn't the 3xxK just order up a Model S that was available immediately? Was the announced 3 price the sole factor or not?

Would you be willing to put a deposit down on a vehicle you had zero information on beyond 'its a smaller sedan than this one with less MPG, space and features, but it will cost/start at $35K'? If your answer is 'yes', what did you base your decision on?

Did Buick accept pre-orders on an Envision no one saw based on a falsified base MSRP? I don't think so.

Sorry; here, back on topic: Wouldn't a far greater service be rendered by listing MPG ratings for semi-trucks? These drive FAR more miles per vehicle and far quicker than any 3/4T / 1T trucks do, and their fuel costs are tied into the product they deliver. Even 0.1 MPG better would add up and effect more people than an individual getting 1.0 MPG better in a Brand X 3/4T / 1T personal truck over Brand Y. I'm reading that the 'holy grail' of loaded truck MPG is 10 MPG and they are currently around 5.5-6.5 MPG. No 3/4T-1T gets MPG that poor. No Super Duty buyer is going to jump ship to Chevy because of 1 MPG better rating, so it serves no purpose. I'll bet under strictly level testing parameters, the Big 3 are within a MPG of each other- it's certainly not going to be, say; a 4 MPG difference. And even if it were, it's not going to sway brand allegiance.

• MB makes no money on EVs, and they are grossly late to the party. Some might say they should have foreseen and beaten Tesla to the punch, or at least answered a 6 yr old product by now. • Their reputation -as you claim it- is built on excess and V-12s, not 84-mile 2-ton compacts. • Are consumers currently rejecting MB EVs suddenly going to go 'Hell Yeah America!' and buy them because they're built here? MB has no EV cred; actually its the opposite. Right now, Ford offers far more TRQ than any Tesla (792 vs. 925). Tho it's possible to exceed that in an EV, it's easier to turn up the TRQ wick in a TD. Also, what penalties any EV truck would encounter under load is unknown, but given those EV cars see with HVA/C useage... it's likely to be a major factor (moreso than 1 or 2 MPG differences focused on here).

• Stock price is the ONLY thing keeping Tesla's lights on right now. There is nothing of higher importance to the company- it's a pure revenue generator and the primary one. • Most OEMs don't make most of their components- outsourcing is the way of the industry today. It's part of how Ford, GM & Daimler turn huge profits. • 1 EV that just went nation-wide in sales 3 weeks ago. More are coming. Let's see how the Model 3 launch goes.

Ahh, was inter-misled. Bolt interior: Still not seeing any Cavalier bits... but it is below that of the Volt's via the pics.

I don't think it's "hiding" anything- it doesn't seem to hurt MB that they list 51 individual models that are rated between 11 and 18 MPG. HD truck owners spend huge coin on trucks; they know what they like and what to expect. Duramax, Powerstroke & Cummins have all been around for going on 2 decades, and while they've gotten better, it's been incrementally. Duramax has gone from the Allison 5 gear auto... to 6 gears. In 17 years. In the same time frame the 1/2T has gone from 4 gears to 10 (2018 Escalade).

Ford has bigger pressure to maintain $10B in profit than Tesla has to SHOW any sort of profit at all?? Investors buy stock for 1 basic reason- to earn a return. Returns are garnered 2 ways- selling at a profit and earning dividends beforehand. Tesla dividend : $0.00. Now, I'm well aware of Tesla's stock chart, frankly it's amazing.... but it's amazing not so much for the price (today: $351), but for the disconnect between it and the company's financial condition. Model X and S are high priced and of small volume. Model 3 is the 'everyman's Tesla'- it's how orders have reached a volume representing nearly 5 years of current Tesla volume- the advertised MSRP. Reasonably achieving a timely filling of those orders in a solid product launch will potentially realize a economy of scale that could turn the blood loss tide into the black. Potentially. If the Model 3 provides the revenue and profit to make the company solid, the stock may double or more. If it does not, and financially the Model 3 is yet another Model S/X... who knows but IMO a lot of the 'positive mojo' may evaporate. Tesla has no cash for a take over. Tesla also doesn't WANT to buy Ford or GM- it goes against their proclaimed mantra. And GM HAS answers already on the market. Bolt has a solid chance at being the #1 selling EV in 2017- a stat I know means everything to you.

Would like to see the link to the Corporate PR showing there were no base or near base MSRP Envisions at production start-up. And how many pre-orders did Buick take on the announced MSRP of the Envision before showing the vehicle?

CR has long been suspect for refusing to lay out their 'formulas' for calculating their rating system.

^ And that's a very valid point; is the Model S interior worth $30K more than the Bolt?

FoMoCo made $10 billion pre-tax profit in 2016 and miscroscopic Tesla lost three-quarters of billion. You tell me if the same pressures are in play.

If you say so. I don't trust anything coming out of the Far East- lots of shaky stuff there. - - - - - Here's an '81 F-150 half ton ad. 300 CI I6, touting a thoroughly unbelievable 21/29 MPG. I had the same truck in a '94 (300 I6 but w/ FI, 4-spd auto, 2WD, 3.08 gears). Still have the window sticker- it was rated at 15/20. I charted every tank of gas from 6 miles to 146,xxx, and it only averaged 15. 23 years later the 'same' truck ('17 Sierra 1/2-ton EC/standard bed, but with 5.3L AFM V8 & 6-spd auto) is rated at 18 vs. my '94's 15. Again: this is the most unchanged vehicle segment...

I didn't say it was bad, but that it was inconsequential. My buddy has a brand new Sierra ext cab/standard bed 4x4, 5.3 AFM V8. Says he's getting great MPG, 24 on the highway (rated @ 18/24). But there's a clear delineation between half ton & 3/4T & above buyers. This article addresses 3/4T & 1T trucks- a segment that perhaps has the highest per capita product awareness in the industry. People who buy these either absolutely need them, or know going in what to expect. Also keep in mind this class of vehicle changes the least out of all segments of vehicles because of function dictates, which brings stability in awareness. Self-appointed 'advocacy' entities such as CR here market their cause as protective, IE: in this case a theoretical 2500HD GMC buyer will end up regretting their purchase because a F-250 Super Duty is rated to get 1 MPG better on the highway. While no one will refuse better MPG on the face of it, the Big 3 are so close that it's not going to drive any sales shifts.