“In short, Tesla should stop misleading people.” 

Yeah, but this is Tesla we’re talking about. Misleading people is part of their DNA.

Yep...

Though to be fair, I dislike the body roll you get in CUVs even at very moderate speeds. The Escape and CX-5 are by far the best in the category at minimizing this, IMO - but even there I prefer the feel of a sedan like a Fusion/Mazda6/Accord....

Yeah - but realistically, the small overlap test was created because vehicles were actually likely to collide with a small overlap on the driver’s side -I’ve never seen IIHS provide any evidence this type of crash is common on the passenger side. These same vehicles that look bad on the small overlap are generally…

“A Ford Escape is absolutely a big SUV.”

You’ve clearly never sat in one - particularly in the back seat, which is tiny.

“Almost all cars sold in the US are made in the US. Honda, Nissan, Toyota, BMW, Audi, Suburu, Porsche, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Fiat, and almost any manufacturer you can list has factories on US soil and will not be subject to import tariffs.

Define “terrible”.

Because the 1997 Taurus I once had could rightfully be considered “terrible” compared to new midsize sedans. For its time, though, it was affordable, comfortable, reliable, got good gas mileage, and while not a great handler by any means, still had better handling than a Camry.

What a bunch of drivel from an ass.

1) I don’t drive a “japanese jelly bean”. I have a Ford Fusion and a Mazda6.

2) That “japanese jelly bean” gets well over TWICE the fuel economy of an 82 Escort, which only managed 23 mpg with an A/T.

3) Nothing I suggested would prevent people from driving a truck. It would simply…

Agreed...

While I think moving to a footprint-based formula was actually an improvement over the old fleetwide average formula, its ridiculous that the requirements for a lifted wagon (ie CUV) are significantly weaker than the requirements for an actual station wagon. They should be the same - then we’d get our wagons…

“So therefore the only reasonable option is to make big, huge trucks legal only if you are using them for work purposes. “

There is a far easier solution.

Change CAFE requirements so that a vehicle can only qualify as a “truck” if it comes with no power windows, no power doors, vinyl seats ONLY, no carpeting on the…

Hey, they learned it from Honda, who not so long ago said that if you wanted electronic stability control, you had to get leather and a sunroof.

You are stretching beyond belief.

There is no difference between California saying “hey, if you want to sell a car here, it can’t put out more than x pollution” and Hawaii saying “hey, if you want to sell sunscreen here, it can’t dump more than x pollution in our waters”. NONE.

Dont forget selling a flamethrower, too....

So let me get his right -

The law requires that someone be allowed to bring an “emotional support animal” - something which isn’t well-defined and for which there is darn near zero regulation over who qualifies - onboard, even when it is as big as another person, and the airline has to accomodate them.

But there is…

I can believe that. I used to work with the auto industry 15 years ago, and it irks me still...

Erm...

Hawaii has a prohibition on certain types of sunscreen but not all - all based on the formulation. That is NO different than this, and PERFECTLY within their rights.

Nonsense.

Hawaii has the right to ban sunscreens with oxybenzone. No one contests that.

Texas has the right to ban the sale of shark fins (currently legal in the US). No one questions that.

There are countless examples of states banning products legal in other states. Just because you don’t like this one example doesn’t…

Exactly. California just doesn’t have the rights to force their standards on other states (manufacturers choosing to use CA standards in all states isn’t California forcing their standards on other states). And CA doesn’t have the right to impose tariffs on products imported to California from other states.

But there…

It isn’t that it wasn’t selling enough - its that they think they can make more money selling more crossovers. There are plenty of vehicles that they sell at lower volumes they’re still keeping around (Transit Connect, Mustang, etc). Its a calculated gamble that they won’t lose customers by abandoning cars and can…

I’m getting there. I *WANT* EVs to succeed... and I’ve wanted Tesla to succeed. But the more Musk runs his ridiculous mouth and the more the workers are treated like dirt, the more I’m getting to the point where I want them to fail and then get bought by a car company that knows what the hell they’re doing.