Yes there is:

Same goes for that faux-leather shit VWAG put in the newer cars. News flash carmakers, real leather and faux leather do the same damn thing on a car seat, especially when they’re dark colors... they use the sun’s happy, warming rays to convert your seat into a mobile ass frying recliner with a view.

The proliferation of leather interiors of any kind is yet another thing that turns me off to modern cars.

There is a lot of truth here. Maintaining a leather interior (or interior in general) is really hard when you live in the desert and the 115 degree heat of summer combines with constant sun to fry your leather and melt your plastic.

Up here in the North, we have things called “seasons”, one of which is “summer”. Summer is plenty to convince me that leather/vinyl is a terrible material to make a car seat out of. Cloth or GTFO.

One other thing. Wanna know why car manufacturers are using it in such volume? Two reasons actually. You hit the nail on the head with the “upscale factor”. The other reason quite honestly is it does not wear well. Manufacturers WANT your car to become tatty and worn looking quickly so you will go and buy a new one.…

Those of us who don’t live up north, realize that leather + shorts = pain. Leather sucks. It sucks so bad, I can’t even. It roasts in the car. It cracks and looks like crap if it hasn’t been taken care of. It’s the worst possible material you can stick into a car’s interior.

Yeah, but you know, I want what I want NOW. I shouldn't have to wait 30 minutes to refuel. Don't you know how important I am?

750, filthy, dirty, soot and NOx spewing miles?

I like the Model S styling much better than the Model X. The Model X styling looks like it was designed to look as much like the Model S as possible, even though the end result would be awkward.

1 kWh is 3,412 BTU’s. 1 gallon of a gas is 115,000 BTU’s. 115,000/3,412=33.7 kWh.

It’s been done before, Ford offered an electric Ranger from 98-02

As has been said, the Cruze produces the emissions, but uses urea to clean them up after the fact. VW produces the emissions, then just lets them go out the tailpipe.

The EPA should test real-world emissions and economy on a track for every platform/vehicle/drivetrain combo. Or farm it out to Consumer Reports or some other NGO.

About six months ago, my sister, the Asheville, NC, granola eating hippie, asked me to help her choose between a Prius and a VW Diesel. (I think they were both lightly used ‘09 models, as I recall.) I told her to get the Toyota, and she was like, “Aren’t they having airbag issues?” I replied, “That’s Takata, and no, I…

Justice is served!

Your claim is factually incorrect. Use of a weed wacker for several hours times several times a year will not produce the same emissions as over 100,000 miles driven by a car.

If you want to do the math, do the math. State your assumptions and sources. Ballpark knowlege of emissions tells me you are way off.

Are you really blaming the EPA for this shit? You can get on your anti-EPA soapbox, but for God sakes don't use that shit to justify what VW did. Separate issues man.

The fact that EPA is not going after diesel trucks as hard as passenger cars doesn’t mean passenger car NoX emissions need not be controlled. And what’s this? “The EPA limit for NOx emission is so close to zero, that multiplying the permissible emissions leaves us still pretty darn close to zero.”

Dieselgate still amazes me. Not some scumbag Albanian car manufacturer hanging on by a thread resorting to cheating in order to stay in business, but one of the BIGGEST CAR COMPANIES IN THE WORLD deliberately set out to cheat the tests and did just that—pure fraud. And poorly attempt to downplay the fiasco by labeling…