South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond stayed in the Democratic Party during the Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt in spite of FDR’s stated support for civil rights. It wasn’t until President Truman pushed a plank of civil rights reforms that Thurmond and other southern Democrats left the party. When a reporter pointed out to Thurmond that Truman was basically just saying what FDR had said, the Governor responded “Yes – but Truman really means it.”
I bring this up in today’s The Morning Dump, not because I want to talk about the impending election, but because I heard a similar refrain from the head of Volkswagen’s Works Council. Companies always feign massive cutbacks in order to fare better in negotiations, but now labor in Germany is saying that this time VW actually means it.
The company is in bad shape for so many reasons, but a big one is that VW skipped over hybrids post-Dieselgate and has a bunch of electric cars that are only moderately performing. They’re not alone. The average EV has a lot of money on the hood.
Even Teslas are being discounted, but Tesla is so good at making electric cars that it’s not yet to the point that it’s crashing profits. Also, Tesla isn’t currently unionized and a new ruling might embolden Musk to tweet even more about it.
And, finally, chips are back in the car conversation again. Hit it Ponch!
VW Might Close Three Plants In Massive Cost-Cutting Move
I’ve already gone into great detail about the many mistakes Volkswagen has made, from jumping straight to electric cars to making cars that are uncompetitive. It doesn’t help that, in addition to the United States in China, Volkswagen still needs to sell cars in its troubled home market. [Ed Note: And that’s not even mentioning the big 2015 mistake. -DT].
Where’s this going? Nowhere good. Most of Volkswagen’s German plants are in Lower Saxony and, for various historic reasons going back to British oversight after WWII, the State of Lower Saxony essentially has a veto on any VW moves.
The local Works Council–basically a union–also has some small say in what happens and the head of the council, Daniela Cavallo, told her members that Volkswagen is planning deep cuts and legitimately means it this time.
Germany’s Manager Magazine filed this report from the Works Council meeting that has the whole automotive world buzzing this morning:
None of us can feel safe here anymore,” warned works council chairwoman Daniela Cavallo (49). “The board is against us.”
According to the works councils , the cuts that the board of directors, headed by CEO Oliver Blume (56) and VW brand boss Thomas Schäfer (54), are planning at the Wolfsburg-based carmaker could be even more serious than previously announced.
What does bad look like?
Cavallo and the works council now said that VW management wanted to close “at least three VW plants” in Germany . At the beginning of September, Group CFO Arno Antlitz (54) had stressed that VW was missing around 500,000 cars sold in Europe and thus “the sales for around two plants”.
When asked about the specific allegations, Volkswagen said: “We are not participating in speculation about the confidential talks with IG Metall and the works council at the collective bargaining and company level.” Human Resources Director Gunnar Kilian (49) stressed that the company is sticking to the agreed principle of “conducting these discussions internally with our negotiating partners.”
That’s not a “no,” and everyone seems to be taking this seriously.
Who is to blame for Volkswagen getting into this situation? That’s an entire essay for another time, but it’s probably not the workers. The government has some culpability. For years, the so-called Stoplight Coalition in Germany has tried to keep employment up in more conservative parts of the former East Germany and leaned on VW to build plants there. The country, as part of the EU, has pushed for electrification and then suddenly removed tax credits for buying EVs.
The biggest issue, though, has been leadership. Going back to Dieselgate, there’s been what some see as a pervasive aura of hubris at Volkswagen that might prove to be fatal over the long run. I think the new CEO, Blume, is from a separate generation and has a better view of things, but there’s only so much one CEO can do at this point.
What’s the plan? The plan sounds like blowing up Volkswagen from the inside and replacing it with a bunch of connected, smaller companies without all the legacy costs/issues. That explains the Rivian-VW deal, the no-dealer Scout model, and even the news that Cupra might come to the United States.
Volkswagen as a larger company has a lot of constituent parts that sort of work, but the actual Volkswagen brand itself isn’t one that makes a lot of sense at the moment, being split between non-hybrid gas-powered crossovers, cheap sedans, and overpriced electric cars.
That Band-Aid rip might be necessary, but I don’t see the German government and the Works Council just rolling over. At the same time, dealers in the United States say they’re going to fight Scout at every courthouse and statehouse in America if they have to.
It’s getting wild out there, folks.
EVs Need 12% Discounts To Move
The average ICE+ car (gas-powered and hybrid) needs an average of 7% of incentives to sell these days. That’s a high number, but not an unprecedented one. An EV? It needs about 12% in discounts on average to sell, according to Cox Automotive.
It does seem to working a bit:
The electric vehicle (EV) market continues to expand in the U.S., as recent Cox Automotive data reveal a year-over-year rise in sales for both new and used EVs. September marked the sixth consecutive month in which new EV sales surpassed 100,000 units. EV share of new vehicle sales achieved a notable 9% last month, the highest level to date. The price difference between electric and traditional vehicles narrowed in September, indicating greater accessibility. In the new-vehicle market, EV incentives remain elevated.
So more EVs are being sold, but discounts are high.
Appeals Court: Musk Can Tweet ‘Threats’ To Workers
I feel like it’s better for the world in general, and maybe especially for Tesla shareholders, when CEO Elon Musk doesn’t tweet. That’s just my personal opinion. Maybe you love it!
Does Musk have the legal right to tweet things? The National Labor Relations Board found that Musk’s tweet about workers losing stock options if they unionized was a threat and forced him to remove his tweet. It’s gone back and forth in the courts but, on Friday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it was protected speech.
“Deleting the speech of private citizens on topics of public concern is not a remedy traditionally countenanced by American law,” the court said.
The 5th Circuit is considered the most conservative appellate court in the country and has made a slew of recent decisions rolling back agency power, raising concerns that a ruling in Musk’s favor could weaken the authority of the NLRB to police employers’ speech for threats and coercion. The NLRB made the original determination that Musk’s tweet illegally threatened workers.
In a dissenting opinion, several of the judges said the court’s ruling “says zip about whether the NLRB is entitled to enforcement of seven uncontested Tesla labor violations” and ignores “whether Musk’s tweet was an unfair labor practice.”
The NLRB has been a thorn in Musk’s side and, if his friend wins the presidency, it’s quite possible that a Trump Administration will try to get rid of the NLRB.
The Trouble With Chips
My favorite potato chip company is Zapp’s, though I tend to vacillate between liking Cajun Crawtators or Hotter ‘n’ Hot Jalapeno flavors the most [Ed Note: Those can’t be real flavors, right? Crawtator? -DT]. Knowing this, my wife got me a huge box with 38 bags inside.
This was great for a minute and then suddenly a bit of a burden since I could not resist these chips.
Right now the world of semiconductors is dominated by Western-allied companies and, in particular, by Taiwan’s TSMC. Those chips are not supposed to go to China because a more advanced chip is necessary to get a lead in many areas of modern technology.
Being able to restrict these chips gives the United States and other governments an advantage so long as China can’t match what TSMC can produce.
In the past, this wasn’t a big issue for automakers as cars haven’t historically needed the most advanced chips to operate, say, the heated seats. The rise of driverless systems has changed this and now companies like China’s Huawei are trying to make advanced driver aids.
Since 2020, Huawei hasn’t been able to access TSMC chips but, uh oh, what’s this? Huawei’s latest AI chips were made by TSMC?
Bloomberg explains what’s going on here:
An investigation of Huawei Technologies Co.’s latest AI offering has unearthed an advanced processor made by Nvidia Corp. manufacturing partner Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., suggesting that China is still struggling to reliably make its own advanced chips in sufficient quantities.
Canada-based research firm TechInsights recently took apart at least one of the Shenzhen conglomerate’s highest-end artificial intelligence accelerators and discovered an Ascend 910B chip manufactured by TSMC, according to people familiar with a recent teardown of the devices. They requested anonymity to discuss a report that isn’t public.
How did China get these chips?
BIS officials met with TSMC executives in mid-October about issues relating to the chipmaker’s supply chain, including whether third-party distributors may provide China the ability to access restricted technology, according to one of the people, who described the meeting as collaborative.
The world is a big place and if someone wants something badly enough it’s hard to stop them. On the flipside, this shows that Chinese chipmakers aren’t there yet.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
For no reason at all, here’s Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee doing “Despacito.”
The Big Question
Should Volkswagen just break itself up at this point?
Top photo: Credit: Anton Lozovoy/depositphotos.com
“…but Tesla is so good at making electric cars…”
Are they? Their overall quality is some of the worst in the industry. I’d certainly never by a car built as poorly as most any Tesla. And that’s not even counting the CT.
Yeah, I think the more accurate phrase would be “…Tesla is now so experienced at making electric cars..” The word “good” is working very hard in this article!
Wasn’t VW supposed to build a charging network as part of the dieselgate settlement? Whatever became of that?
The reason people don’t want to buy EV’s is because they don’t see very many places to charge them.
Tesla figured that out, none of its competitors did.
That’s the electrify America network. It hasn’t been a roaring success for them for sure
Electrify America is the 2nd largest charging network in the US market (I think).
And all reports about people’s experience trying to charge at Electrify America stations is that it is very hit or miss. Meaning you go there and there’s a good chance maybe 1/4th of the chargers don’t work. Or you start charging and your charging session stops or is significantly downgraded in speed. Etc…
I wrote in the post about the Scout launch that I hope VW uses the time between now and the launch of their brand new Scout brand and models to completely refresh as much of their Electrify America network as possible.
1. Fix Reliability: Figure out the top reasons their charging stations are so unreliable and fix them*
2. Standardize Connectors: Upgrade all stations to the NACS connector since that IS the standard all evs in the US are consolidating around
3. Encourage Independent verification: Get the word out, even a bit about their efforts and encourage you tubers to try their revised charging locations for themselves
4. Lower their darn prices! Currently prices at EA stations are 3x prices at Tesla SuperChargers on a price per kwh basis
*I completely understand this may be exceptionally difficult and there are likely to be Many reasons for their current unreliability
I imagine that if gas stations were all self service without anybody supervising them they would have some severe problems with reliability and criminal activity. The EV charging places can’t even keep people from using than as parking spots or steeling the equipment.
Someone on site , maybe selling snacks, refreshments and lottery tickets? An espresso bar? Its like those places were intended to fail, they all seem to be in the local equivalent of a dark alley.
I know there are some diesel pumps that are card operated for farmers and fleet use , but those generally aren’t quite as unsupervised or hidden from view as the EV chargers.
The quality of the charging sites certainly runs the full spectrum from clean, safe, well lit, convenient, bathroom/drinks/food available on the one end and dirty, risky, dark, inconvenient, no bathroom/drinks/food available.
My impression is that in general high power dc chargers in Europe on the whole are nicer than those found in the US.
This is where someone from Europe could have an incredible advantage in establishing a great hv dc charging experience for US customers, ie by applying lessons learned there to the US market.
This is exactly why I think VW could (if they wanted to) has an incredible opportunity to rebrand their EV charging network.
It is difficult for me to understand why it seems more people don’t understand the Huge business opportunity this represents.
Legacy gas stations will have to adopt or die and besides the example of Bucky I can’t think of any large(ish) refueling station brands that seem to be taking this seriously.
One of the other problems is that someone keeps putting fake EV charging facilities into Google maps.
Oof that Is bad and I’m sure what lots of ev newbies would use
I don’t have an ev (yet) both our dad’s are now phevs, though I’ve heard from lots of ev youtubers that plugshare is a really reliable app / website that shows available ev charging locations and details about each charging location, such as number of charging stations and I think even the kwh rates each charging station is capable of delivering
https://www.plugshare.com/map/free-ev-stations
vast majority of the funding for EA was from mandatory court order paid for by VW as a result of their diesel emissions cheating candle to the tune of $Billions, it is certainly possible (likely even) there was some federal and state incentives included as well.
I certainly agree there are plenty examples of govt. wasted spending. Financially incentivising private companies to help enable a country wide ev charging network strikes me as a relatively admirable use of funds, as it directly assists our own energy flexibility, independence and has the 3 secondary effect of decreasing air pollution; hypothetically healthier people leading to a possibly more people alive to be productive knock on effect…
I’ve already gone into great detail about the many mistakes Volkswagen has made, from jumping straight to electric cars to making cars that are uncompetitive. It doesn’t help that, in addition to the United States in China, Volkswagen still needs to sell cars in its troubled home market. [Ed Note: And that’s not even mentioning the big 2015 mistake. -DT].
Something else that didn’t help (at least in the US) – Electrify America sabotaging their own system with their higher than gasoline equivalent rates. According to
Nerdwallet “A common rate at Electrify America chargers is 48 cents per kilowatt hour.” That works out to a gasoline equivalent of $6.50/gallon… IF you can even find a charger that worked.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/how-to-use-electrify-america
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brookecrothers/2023/10/15/electrify-america-explains-cause-of-those-vexing-ev-charging-problems/
EV sales continue to grow. The problem with VW is their EVs are not competitive in range, charging speed, and cost. Until they make something that competes with the market leaders, their EV sales will continue to drop. They are down about 50% so far this year compared to 2023.
Remember when VW was positioning itself to become the biggest car company in the world? (Just over 10 years ago.) Huge fail!! Oxford dictionary should list VW as a definition for hubris.
I feel like it’s better for the world in general, when everybody doesn’t tweet. That’s just my personal opinion. Maybe you love it!
Perhaps VAG could work on the myriad basic reliability issues its Japanese competition solved about 30 years ago. Things like water leaking into the cabin, electrical gremlins, failure-prone engine plastics, etc. Watching ReDriven’s used car reviews for anything by the VW group (and, to a lesser extent, Europe in general), I don’t understand how a long-running manufacturer continues to produce cars with such basic design flaws.
Of course this is just my wishful thinking, I’m aware that German manufacturers still somehow have a reputation for quality and reliability amongst the masses – even if it hasn’t really been true since the early 90s.
The German engineers’ philosophy: Why make something work when you can over-engineer it instead?
I don’t understand how a long-running manufacturer continues to produce cars with such basic design flaws.
Ask GM. Or Chrysler. Or Ford. Or Rover. Or Fiat. Or Alfa Romeo. Or Ferrari. Or Peugeot. Or Subaru. Or Mitsubishi. Or BMW. Or Aston Martin. Or…
I Acknowledge that a lot of other manufacturers have issues too, but I still feel like VAG is one of the worst in terms of the sheer number of flaws across their fleet, in terms of mechanical, electrical, bodywork, repairabity and even cost of parts. I’ve had GM product with obvious fit-and-finish flaws in the interior and a tendency to chew through tyres, but at least the engine was reliable and dead-simple to work on. Likewise, my Ford Territory has a pretty crappy interior and the diesel engine’s made of glass, but at least parts are cheap and again it’s fairly easy to work on. From what I’ve heard about VAG products they’re none of these things (even parts can be pretty expensive for their “semi-premium” mainstream brands, at least down here in Aus).
Here, this might help:
https://www.theautopian.com/chevrolet-tried-to-make-the-vega-compete-with-bmw-and-it-was-a-hilarious-failure/
I kind of think VW needs broken up, yes. I’m only speaking for myself but they’ve never been a brand that has really had much, if anything, that has ever been interesting. I’ve had people in my life own their cars and they were all junk that fell apart with constant issues. All their cars are bland and utilitarian looking. I’ve test driven a few of them and I can’t believe they don’t catch even more shit than they do now on the quality front. Cheap, cramped, uncomfortable interiors full of shitty materials. Add on the mechanical/electrical issues that plague a lot of their cars and I don’t really get it. I guess because they have models that aren’t outrageously expensive? I would like Audi to get away from them because they’ve lost any type of their own character. I feel like a ton of their cars look like rebadged Volkswagens now. Outside of things like the RS6 Avant anyway. I realize I’m probably a minority though.
You just might get your wish. Most people seemed to have forgotten that investor Carl Icahn got a nice chunk pf VW stock when he sold Navistar to them. Now that VW is tanking, Icahn can start pushing to break up the company. I expect that move to start by early next year.
I vacillate between Zapp’s Cajun Crawtaters and its Dill Pickle chips. Can’t believe I’ve been eating these things for nearly 40 years! I don’t think the Chinese can make these chips either.
VW should initiate the breakup. A controlled implosion is always preferable to annihilation by outside forces.
It’s kind of like southern biscuits – it’s in the flour, you can’t fake it.
The Volkswagen piece is written from a very US-centric perspective. It might be in the tatters in the US, but it still is a household name in Europe.
So VAG might be rethinking its strategy outside of Europe, but the Volkswagen brand is not going anywhere.
I suspect 95% of the American public would fail at trivia night if the question was “Who is the world’s #2 automaker”. 90% of them would miss this question if you gave them five guesses.
To say the brand it too big to fail ignores bankruptcy of Chrysler, the bankruptcy of General Motors, and the near bankruptcy of Ford in 2008 (avoided only because of a line of credit that they secured in 2007). I could easily see Volkswagen go bankrupt, but be saved by the German government since it is such an integral part of their economy.
Oh indeed, and I am not opposed to the possible notion of a bankrupt VAG (neither to your comment of it being bailed out by the German government).
What I am opposing to is the notion that the solution is to get rid of the Volkswagen brand (or minimise it). That’d be like if an Europen outlet, when GM was in big trouble, had said the solution is to get rid of Chevrolet and replace it with something else in Europe. That’d be not seeing the wood for the trees (and a very Euro-centric view to boot too).
Probably. Overly large conglomerates of auto brands have basically never worked out. See GM pre-bailout, see Ford pre-selling off of most of their brands, see Stellantis currently. VW is in that category and it’s not surprising that it isn’t working.
Volkswagen has a quite good structure of brands (perhaps now with a bit of overlap with Cupra and Seat). The cars are still fairly different between them and they cater to different audiences.
Stellantis is an absolute mess (and it was before the Peugeot-Fiat merger) so surely they have to get rid of some.
The issue for GM and Ford is that their middle brands were too similar between them. VAG can of course fall there, but they haven’t, at least yet.
My favorite chips are Zapp’s Crawtators and Andy Capp’s Hot Fries (and no, the Cheeto brand hot fries are NOT “just as good”!).
VW seems like one of those companies that, in the US at least, were forever trying to keep trying crazy stuff instead of just improving their quality. The idea that German cars = high-end quality was pervasive in the 90’s and early 2000’s and VW dropped the ball majorly by not trying to capitalize on that by bringing quality German cars to people at lower price points. I really think they could’ve built up quite a customer base here.
The “unique” stuff seemed to have some value at least from my perspective. The only people I know who used to be “VW people” were interested in 1) the Beetle and 2) TDI cars – specifically Golfs and Jetta Wagons.
The one person had a Beetle TDI that was run into the ground, before replacing it with a Beetle Turbo gasser which she still has (bought after Dieselgate).
The other TDI owners all took the buyout and haven’t bought a VW since.
So it’d seem people liked the stuff they couldn’t find elsewhere. When given the choice to buy a 2.0T powered CUV from VW or anyone else, they chose anyone else.
VW’s vehicles that follow the mainstream, like their CUVs, hold very little brand image. I don’t dislike their styling, but it doesn’t do anything special, and they don’t do anything unique in the mechanicals either. I want to say they would be better off if they replaced all that with modern takes on their legacy vehicles but that won’t save them if every attempt is like the Buzz.
Yeah I posted this on another article, but it is right that they do nothing special. With the exception of the RS cars, you can add Audi in there too at this point.
VWs used to at least be “drivers cars”. The Jetta, Golf, Passat were all creatures of the Autobahn ready to reward you with better handling than the Japanese or American competitor. I don’t think anyone thinks the Tiguan is “rewarding” the driver any more than a CR-V these days.
VWs of the 90’s/00’s also used to be praised for their interiors. “Audi-like” they’d say. You were getting a nicer feeling car than the competition. That is gone too.
If you value reliability, you aren’t going to VW. If you value low prices, you aren’t going to VW. Maybe they have a great warranty then? Nope, standard warranty.
So why aren’t you just buying a Honda, Toyota, or Hyundai/Kia again?
It is funny about this driver’s cars fame of Volkswagens in the US when they weren’t really (autobahn-manners doesn’t necessarily mean drivers cars).
I’m just recalling the marketing and what I used to read Car and Driver say about them. The Passat was always a step above say the Camry for driving characteristics, sometimes at the expensive of comfort.
I don’t think any car reviewers say buy the Atlas because Hyundai just can’t match the responsive steering in the Santa Fe.
Here’s something that will blow your mind: VW also makes something called the GTI and the Golf R.
Even if you’re a huge fan of appliance CUVs, nobody is forcing them on you. Even Ford who decided they’re an SUV/CUV/truck maker, is still making the Mustang.
Sure, I gave them credit for that in another post.
The point is that their bread and butter volume cars used to get that praise. They used to be cut above the rest for driving dynamics. Not just their performance models.
The Jetta and Passat are still much better driving cars than Corollas and Camrys. I know because I’m in rentals almost every week.
Actually the only cars I refuse outright at the rental counter are Hyundai/Kia which have the worst driving dynamics by far (to the point where they feel unsafe above certain speed), but they sell like hotcakes, so that tells you something about how driving dynamics impact the car market (hint: not at all).
So you have your choice of several appliance SUV/CUV/trucks or ONE car.
Not sure you can pin this on the carmakers, when I can guarantee most people in this very comment thread drive around in RAV4s and SantaFes as their daily, while at the same time whining about the lack of fun cars, without ever buying one, or only buying well-used examples as their 3rd-4th ‘weekend’ car.
Compared to a Camry, probably. Compared to a Peugeot 405, an Alfa Romeo 155 or a Ford Mondeo, not so much…
The Passat was always a step above say the Camry for driving characteristics, sometimes at the expensive of comfort.
So was the Accord.
I’ve never really got VW. Germany’s fifth best car company. BMW, MB, Porsche, Audi then VW. They don’t even have Nissan levels of badge appeal to me.
I hankered after a Corrado for a while, but everything else is solidly meh to me. I only have a grudging respect for the beetle because of Torch’s excellent brainwashing.
I feel sorry for the workers.
Vin Anatra & Jason Cammisa have each said that the import scene in the late 80s-late 90s was dominated by Hondas but they got stolen a lot, which I remember hearing about when I was growing up around the same time. According to them, the GTI or Corrado (or Scirocco) was similar fun & performance but less likely to get stolen, especially compared to a similarly modified Civic.
Your list of 5 brands is 60% Volkswagen–they own Porsche, Audi, and VW (and Bugatti, Bentley, Lamborghini, Skoda, and SEAT for just passenger cars). They have an overwhelming majority of the market share in Europe.
And in any case Audi are (were?) little more than fancy Volkswagens.
(Although now in some cases are cut-price Lambos. Who could’ve thought that…)
Yeah, but the VW branded cars are just cars.
Not to mention that overreach by the NLRB is pretty well documented. It’s an agency that has some good things to do, but just can’t help themselves from going too far.
Gubmint agencies “go too far” because they work for EVERYBODY, and so have to take into account EVERYBODY’S needs. It’s a mind-set thing that folks who work in the private sector never have to worry about.
They go too far because they are politicized and can’t stay in their lane. They swing like a pendulum overturning their own precedent (sometimes just a few years later) or being overturned by courts. All of that takes a tremendous amount of resources.
Gubmint employees are only political at the very highest levels. The vast majority of them stay in their positions even after a change at the top.
And by the way, those changes are electoral. If the people vote out the guy who wanted to build blah blah blah in favor of the guy who doesn’t want to build blah blah blah, then all of the work toward building blah blah blah goes up in smoke. Because that’s what the people voted for.
The train conductors around here are employees of Metra, a quasi-municipal corporation created to operate commuter rail lines in Northern Illinois. Metra is not political, does not conduct elections, and does not field candidates.
CTA trains don’t have conductors. The engineers are employed by the City of Chicago, but they don’t get fired when a new mayor gets elected.
Nobody that low on the food chain does. The mustaches, yes, but not the front-line workers.
Of course politics is involved in the appointed managerial positions- the mustaches- but 99% of government workers are not appointed positions. And public-sector unions protect those 99% from the corruption that goes on between the elected officials and their appointed mustaches.
Sure, let’s inject some life into gov’t institutions so they can more effectively carry out their missions. But many times the inability to resolve issues w/ an agency is because they are understaffed and underfunded. So instead of “break it up” or “get rid of it” maybe “improve it” or “replace it with something demonstrably better” would be preferable.
As a reward for your words FEMA will give you an extra $750 in the advent of your house being destroyed by a natural disaster, that should be plenty to buy yourself an equivalent home or to rebuild your existing house…
The $750 is an emergency payment for essentials intended to be used quickly and is not implied to be the extent of assistance.
This is an extremely low IQ talking point.
https://www.fema.gov/node/rumor-serious-needs-assistance
The extremely low IQ bit is how much the Federal Government is willing to send outside the US while people here suffer.
Call me old fashioned but I believe US tax dollars should be spent to benefit US taxpayers.
It’s amazing that your point was completely debunked and you just kept rolling.
Sure it was…
Nice pivot, but about 1% of the budget is foreign aid.
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/breakdown-foreign-aid-obligations
And what exactly counts as foreign aid?
Is spending US tax dollars on non US citizens foreign aid? What about the costs associated with complications that arise from non US citizens illegally living in the US?
My point is that the Government takes in plenty of money in taxes to the point that not only should they be able to do their jobs without increasing the deficit, but also do so while paying off the debt.
I’m no fan of US tax dollars being wasted domestically either.
Good news, the Biden administration and Obama administrations significantly reduced the deficits left by their predecessors.
Here you go!
U.S. Presidents and the Federal Deficit – A-Mark Foundation
“Both Democratic presidents since 1980 with completed terms decreased the federal deficit while in office: Bill Clinton had a 150% decrease to end his presidency with a federal surplus of $128 billion, and Barack Obama decreased the deficit by 53%. Joe Biden decreased the deficit by 50% in his first fiscal year, but his overall results are pending the end of his presidency.”
I’m temperamentally in favor of shrinking the size of government, paying down the debt, and reducing expenditures on non-citizens too, but egregious misstatements of facts don’t help the cause.
Please be specific and quote where I ‘egregiously misstated the facts.
-The talking point that $750 is intended to rebuild houses, rather than just be a quick influx of cash for emergency items.
-The implication that spending 1% of our budget on foreign aid somehow means there’s less money available for citizens (as if the mothballed military equipment being sent to Ukraine could somehow improve people’s lives in NC?) The point isn’t quite clear to me.
The point was for people who have lost their homes, living in a disaster zone with minimal functional infrastructure, $750 doesn’t go far at all, and is nowhere near enough to get anyone close to whole again, unless maybe you were homeless at the beginning of the disaster, and even then there are a lot of homeless people who have more than $750 worth of shit in their possession.
We’ve sent money as well as the military equipment. Back in March of 2023 the AP estimated we sent $26 Billion in cash, which doesn’t include the military equipment. They sure as shit weren’t paying pensions by giving them TOW missile launchers and shit. But yes, while the direct cash aid we’re giving to Ukraine is a low percentage of our yearly tax revenue and not the majority of aid that we have given them, it is far from an insignificant amount of money.
As far as the military aid to Ukraine is concerned I got no problem giving them the NOS shit that is set to expire soon or is already expired provided they pay or reimburse us for the transport and we’re able to keep terrorists and such from getting it. I say this because the cost of rendering the munitions inert is greater than just using them.
I do however have a problem with us sending them brand new munitions paid for with US Tax dollars as well as NOS munitions that are far from their expiration dates. IMHO if they want that stuff they should pay market rates for said stuff.
I’m not sure how much more clear I can be that $750 isn’t intended to replace anyone’s home or possessions. It’s something that can be given immediately for emergency use to get food, medication, etc faster than the usual pace of government assistance.
There are other need-based programs that are intended for housing and possessions that require applications but pay out more money.
I gave you the links, you either didn’t read them or didn’t understand.
https://www.fema.gov/node/rumor-serious-needs-assistance
https://www.fema.gov/assistance/individual/housing
As for Ukraine, my personal opinion is that crippling the military of a serious geopolitical rival for relative peanuts (a fraction of 1% of the budget plus some outdated equipment) is easily worth it. You’re free to disagree, but don’t overexaggerate how much we’re actually sending them and how much of that weapons procurement is actually a boost to US manufacturing.
Imagine telling Ronald Reagan that we could bring the Russian military to its knees in exchange for a few billion dollars in weapons contracts and zero American lives.
The other programs don’t pay out enough money either relative to their stated goals.
Besides aging nukes Russia hasn’t posed a threat to the US via conventional warfare for longer than I’ve been alive. Last time we fought them officially conventionally was in Syria against the Wagner group and Pro Assad forces, we absolutely obliterated them.
While the conflict in Ukraine is teaching us good lessons, the Russians are learning just as much if not more, and now they have a pressing need to replace their existing military hardware with better options for modern conflicts. A good example of this is their precision glide bomb kits built to fit on any of their FAB series of bombs that have been in production since 1962.
The FAB kit is an inferior quality knockoff of a US kit that does the exact same thing. Russian planes could not get within 100 miles of the necessary launch point to deliver FAB bombs on target if there were F-22s and F-35 in the air. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel and their radars would never see the plane that killed them.
I’m certain the citizens of NC would be better off if we sent them the mothballed Abrams tanks and such, rather than sending them to Ukraine.
Please enlighten us all then.
The info I posted is directly from FEMA and specifically states that other assistance is available above and beyond the initial $750 for housing and major expenses.
https://www.fema.gov/assistance/individual/housing
Personally, I think it’s a good thing that applications are required to prove need before the government just hands out thousands of dollars to whoever, but it’s not totally clear what you’re advocating for with your series of comments here.
If your position is “The government is inefficient and should be run better”, you’re not going to get an argument from me.
Luckily I was not impacted by the recent storms. But I did live in a flood plain for almost a decade and I have been evacuated and received assistance from FEMA, which tbh I was pretty fucking grateful for.
I won’t correct you on the $750 point, but you knew it was misleading when you said it, and others have already pointed it out.
I’m glad that the assistance you received from FEMA was enough for you.
The $750 dollars point as you correctly determined my “point” on the $750 did not need correction. What I said was to point out how shitty it is to offer $750 to people who lost their homes while we blow obscene amounts of cash on useless shit both here and abroad.
$750 is $750, but in a place with no electricity and minimal working infrastructure after a natural disaster $750 doesn’t go far in the slightest.
I feel the same about when Maui burned and a lot of people died and a ton were unnecessarily harmed due to government incompetence and prioritization of the Hotel owning corporations over the citizens.
Giving people full payouts even if they do not purchase flood insurance creates a moral hazard because why would anyone buy insurance if they could get the same payout without it.
People should not be rewarded for their bad choices by taxpayers subsidies. Maybe the government should mandate flood insurance coverage so that insurance policies and mortgages are not allowed without it. Many people would choose to not live in flood zones if they had to pay the true cost.
Having a mortgage that is unsecured in certain situations is a bad plan, both for the bank and the homeowner. Living on the coast is more expensive whether you like it or not. The cost can be more expensive each month if there is insurance, or it can be more expensive to unlucky people who now still have a mortgage but no house. Either way someone is paying more.
I would actually rather have this be attacked with building codes than insurance regulations. Homes directly on the coast can be required to be built on sticks, and slightly farther inland dirt can be brought in and drainage tiles installed so the house can be built at a higher elevation and out of the flood. Money spend up front to make the house more resilient to flooding will be cheapest in the long run.
So, I think the issue with the NLRB specifically is that they try to do too much and as a result waste the resources they have. Their charge is to enforce labor laws – specifically the collective bargaining rights. But they tend to take it a step further and try to make policy and that or course get challenged over and over again which they have to defend.
I think it could be improved from within with reasonable leadership.
The latest video from Hagerty media explains pretty well the situation with VW when they present the ID Buzz, what a masterpiece of a video, Jason Cammisa did an amazing job there. VW has done such amazing things in the past but their ID vehicles are a disaster from the way VW is used to do things.
They should released first an ID Beetle (with a convertible version) and then the ID Buzz, next the ID Golf and so on. No ones knows what is an ID4? ID7? They sounds like software updates.
You’ve read my mind. This is the perfect opportunity for them to bring back legacy vehicles in a meaningful way. I can think of few other classic nameplates that fits electrification as well as the Beetle and yet VW ignores it.
Great Wall/Ora already did an electric Beetle, likely better than Volkswagen ever would
A proper rear drive and correctly proportioned e-Beetle would have sold me an EV even if it struggled to hit 200 miles of real world range.
The ID.Bug, ID.Buzz, ID.Bunny, etc. would be better naming for sure.
If the Germans had any sense of humor or whimsy, they would have done this and had a home run
What ever you do, don’t mention the war.
/me wonders if anyone gets that old reference/sorta-quote.
I’m enough of an anglophile that I recognize John Cleese almost anywhere
That was a great video, and so on point to their issue. Look at the reaction to the Rivian R3, that’s basically an off road Golf and people are loving the design.
I Loved the Rally-Golf!
Bring back the 5 door Rally-Golf as an EV and I bet it would sell really well, at least in the US
I’m on the Autopian every day, several times a day (or, um, sometimes all day like today) and I could not tell you what an ID4 and ID7 are. ID4 is… a sedan? Is the ID7 an SUV?
(checks)
Lucky-ish guesses.
Zapp’s are awesome! Yes, DT, Crawtators is a real flavor, but the one to get are the Voodoo flavor!
Oui oui! Laissez les bon temps rouler!
This guy knows what’s up.
That motherfucking 5th Circuit, again. I’d say back on its bullshit but it never gets off its bullshit.
For real, the 5th circuit can eat shit for every meal for the rest of eternity.
The remedy for this problem is already underway, and goes on for another 8 days. Vote for pols who will appoint judges who will hold big corps accountable.
With a big, big asterisk on that. The federal judiciary is appointed by the executive branch but confirmed (or not) by the legislative. Mitch McConnell famously held Merrick Garland’s nomination hostage until after the 2016 election saying it should be the voice of the people, then mysteriously lost that bothersome hangup when it was time to cram the SCOTUS in 2020.
This also creates a feedback loop where democracy can dismantle itself as courts work to disenfranchise politically problematic parts of the electorate (gerrymandering, reducing access to mail in voting, removing polling sites and ballot collection sites). The state legislature proposes it, the executive signs off on it, the judiciary makes up reasons to give it a veneer of constitutionality (or not, depending on whether or not they care to do so anymore). Rinse for other constitutional and human rights and repeat for federal courts.
None of this is a reason not to vote; in fact it’s all the more reason to do so. But the judiciary has effectively gone rogue and it will take us literally a generation, if we start now and are extremely lucky (so no, it won’t happen) for there to be checks and balances on three branches coordinating in bad faith to further political gains and cement power rather than advance the state of the nation and represent the will of the people.
Edit: More personally, it’s long past time to get rid of the Electoral College and we should take a long hard look at the Senate, too. Wyoming and North Dakota have the same power over the direction of the United States, at least in the upper House, as California and New York.
Senate- bottom 15 states lose a seat. Top 15 states gain a seat.
So, 15 small states get one, 20 middle-pop states get 2, 15 big-pop states get 3. Senate redneck bias fixed.
Electoral College- Throw it out entirely. Hopefully, if enough states agree to award electors by national popular vote, we can shit-can it ourselves.
Could also do proportional allocations in the Senate – matching the proportion of elected Senators in the year to the proportion of votes by party. So if 34 Senators are up for election and the aggregate Senate vote across all states with an election is 54D-45R, the 18 states with the highest proportion of D votes get a D senator and the other 16 are R. Wyoming would always have two Rs but its voters wouldn’t have disproportionate effects on the aggregate results.
Serious question: haven’t we just reinvented the house of representatives? On the other hand, I guess there could still be utility in normalized-but-not-flattened representation, and still gives unified blocs opportunities to have a say. It still feels at odds with democracy though, but then again we have a republic anyway.
I think it’s an interesting solution and would certainly be fairer than having states with three orders’ magnitude difference in population having equal representation.
See my 50/50 plan. And yes, it does create a sort of second house, but wouldn’t that be more “representative?” The current system is tearing the country apart due to the ability of the majority leader abusing the position (see turtleman).
Try 30 orders of magnitude- Cali vs. Wyoming.
Not in base 10, anyway. Wyoming is 584,000, California is 39,000,000. It’s actually just two orders of magnitude, so I was wrong but not in that direction: 100,000 (WY) -> 1,000,000 -> 10,000,000 (CA).
You are right that it’s ridiculous, though.
Both the Senate and the Electoral College are designed tilt political power toward rural areas.
Was it a slur when Green Day used it?
It is for these reasons that I have become convinced winning/having a senate majority is actually more important than the presidency.
The electoral college needs to go more than ever before.
Ask me about my 50/50 plan wherein each state gets one senator and the rest are allocated by respective state population. In those states that get more than one senator, districts would have to be created so that states like California didn’t elect only from one party. Yes, the districts would be gerrymandered, but that seems unavoidable. If new states ever get added, they don’t get additional seats, just pulled from the current pool of 100. The transition wouldn’t happen overnight, but as each current term ended so as not to shock the system too much. Is this plan brilliant and would solve more problems than it creates? I think so. Will it ever happen? Not a fucking chance. Doing so would cause Republicans to lose some power and as we know, that is simply not acceptable no matter how fair it might be.
Your plan is kinda like mine, same effect, mine just draws hard lines by rank. I think that might work better than re-allocating every election.
Oh yeah, we both landed on the same concept. The main reason I like my idea more (other than raging egomania) is that it’s just plain more equitable and less contrived, which are they very problems we hope to solve. I feel like your solution doesn’t go far enough to resolve the Wyoming vs Cali imbalance. However, know that I would 100% support your plan were it to ever be a real option.
Bottom line, the founders never envisioned that the states would grow at their own rates. They thought every state would remain a bucolic Planter’s paradise.
Indeed!
The founders were struggling to herd 13 cats that were essentially sovereign nations in the same direction. Everything else was subordinate to that, so concessions were made to the little ones to get them on board. We’re still paying for that 250 years later.
Buddy, you should change your name to Cam Shaft because you are off your rocker.
(not an actual representation of how I feel in the least, I just wanted to make the joke)
((I also considered “imbalanced” jokes))
What I do like about these plans (yours, Michael Beranek) we’re throwing out here is that incorporate lessons learned from overprovisioning for small populations, and at least have a glimmer of (theoretical) viability and would be worth trying. You’re right that we’ll never ever get them, but they’ve expanded my brain space a bit at least.
Throw in some term limits and an end to lifetime appointments to courts and we’re getting somewhere.
Just give us any sort of Supreme Court term limits, please!
I am indeed off my rocker. Ask anyone.
Came here to say this.
I hope there will be a future article explaining this further. Since Tesla and Rivian already sell direct to consumer, the only way I can see the dealers having a leg to stand on is if VW has pre-existing obligations explicitly stating all VW owned brands in the USA must be sold through dealerships.
Dealers have tried to fight Tesla and Rivian, even though they have zero ties to existing dealers, so I’m sure the dealers will fight Scout no matter what is in their franchise agreements with VW.
I am certain they will make good on their promise to fight it, but I’m curious if it’s a shot in the dark or if they have something more binding. I hope Scout wins nonetheless.
Maybe they can fight it based on Scout actually being part of VW, which has already has franchise agreements in all 50 states?
The question is if those agreements apply to newly made VW brands like Scout.
Agreed. But I’m assuming that is the approach they’ll take to differentiate this from Tesla/Rivian.
That’s my guess. Volkswagen is going to great lengths to position Scout as it’s own thing, it’s structured as a subsidiary- Scout Motors Inc. – with it’s own separate contracts for parts suppliers and vendors, even down to stuff like HR software, they’re really operating on their own as a semi-autonomous island within VAG, likely all to advance the argument that thar shouldn’t be bound by VW’s dealer franchise rules
GM did similar with Saturn Corporation, to get a separate UAW contract and also put in place much stricter dealer franchise agreements with heavier oversight than their other brands that were structured as divisions
Three big reasons caused me to put a deposit on a Scout.
1.) The theoretical ability to repair 80% of the vehicle myself
2.) Actual buttons and knobs
3.) Direct-to-consumer purchasing.
Pull any one of those three legs off the stool that I used to justify a pre-order to my wife, and I will move on to something else. I’ve purchased a new car every 12 years. A Volkswagen in 2004 and another Volkswagen in 2016. I thought I was done with the brand, not for reliability as everyone seems to assume, but because their current offerings are so uninspiring (or pretentious, like Porsche). It would be quite ironic to me at least, if VAG brought me back into the fold with the Scout.
Where did you get your reason number 1.)? I hope it’s true but maybe I missed it from the other articles here.
TFL Car/Truck mentioned it in their review.
Thanks, I’ll check it out.
Maybe it will be similar like Polestar? They have some sales spaces but they use Volvo dealers for so many things, including service. The actual sale is handled it online, you only show up to a Volvo dealer to sign some documents and that’s about it.
They could use VW dealers but handle everything online, including the negotiation.
Would be a nice way to get around dealers complaining while also leveraging existing locations and service centers, but that doesn’t sound like the route Scout is going.
Is there negotiation with Polestar? Or is the price the price?
I don’t think dealers will ever “die”, nor do they really need to. People will still want a car “today” and not wait for an order. Used cars still need to go somewhere. And certainly OEMs will want a service network.
But it’d be a win if I could just go on any OEMs website, put in an order, and know I can pick it up in 2 months without having to worry about some slimy asshole changing the price or trying to pack it with TruCoat or other shit I don’t want.
Bonus if I didn’t have to pay $1000 for the privilege of buying from a dealer with with damn “doc fees”. I’ll register the car with the DMV myself. You can leave the plastic on too and save it from your shitty car wash.
Polestar: The price is the price.
There isn’t negotiation, but there are brokers on sites like Leasehackr that can provide discounts.
My local Polestar inside a Volvo dealership won’t move on price, but you can get some packages and other freebies negotiated in.
Forgive my ignorance but does telling a crazed psychopath to not tweet something stop him from doing the thing he’s threatening in said tweet?
Evil: profoundly immoral
Let’s call a spade a spade. No apologies needed.
Lets see if this description fits anyone who might be profoundly immoral:
An illegal immigrant – who is anti-immigration.
Takes credit for the work of others.
A known employee discriminator based on race and sex.
Overpromises and Underdelivers – Every Single Time.
Denies responsibility for deaths due to his product faults.
A stock/election manipulator.
Must to be forced to fulfill a purchase offer when he tries to renege – then when he makes the purchase, comes in and fires employees in violation of established employment laws, and refuses to pay their severance packages.
Has how many baby mamas?
Can’t even manage to treat his own trans child with a modicum of respect.
This is not a person I’d like to know, much less do business with.
There was no opinion in that outline of questionable activities – Just facts.
Here’s some more facts:
The Ford Model T was a game changer – but Henry Ford was an Anti-Semite.
Charles Lundburgh’s transatlantic flight was a game-changer – but he was a Fascist.
Nixon signed the Clean Air Act – but he back-channeled with the North Vietnamese to prolong the war to help him gain the Presidency, and then there was that Watergate thing.
Mussolini made the trains run on time and Adolph Hitler commanded the creation of the VW Beetle – but we know how those guys turned out…
It is possible for bad people to do good things.
That was your argument about Elon Musk.
Weird take, Dude.
Please define “hold sway”. I’m not sure the “sway” has any staying power.
So, the rich guy is always right because of “sway”?
That’s exactly the problem we’re trying to solve here!
I’m opposed to the idea that money buys voice. The wealthy use their money to get their way by talking the loudest. But the poor person’s voice is silenced by lack of a megaphone, which is why poverty never gets solved and goes away.
#1 would be to take money out of politics. Run a state-funded campaign that lasts just a few weeks, similar to the UK model.
#2 Pass a law that counteracts the SCOTUS Citizen’s United decision.
Care to elaborate on “how we are headed?” I have my assumptions, but I could be wrong.
My dude, cognitive disabilities doesn’t make you fall into a the deep hole of online white nationalism in hopes that people think your cool. Guy is just a cheeseball who found the one thing money can’t buy, an actual personality. The Guy is out here like a discount Batman villain cause we wouldn’t let him live his Tony Stark fantasy. Hanging on to his shower thoughts about how “Tunnels cool, poor people not cool.” If anything is wrong with him, he has what we in the business call: (F69.420) Asshole disorder
His technical visionary ideas from 2008 or so have been amazing. Today he spends most of his time amplifying hate.
Musk is in the “hole of white nationalism” isn’t a solid take.
He is South African. I’m sure the orange menace would love a 21st century version of Apartheid
“cognitively disabled” person that happens to have the most money in the world. Thus, his words hold sway.” is just too clunky… Criminally wealthy whack-job maybe?
Sell Scout to literally any other brand and I’m buying one!
Stellantis enters the room.
I’d sooner trust any Stellantis vehicle with 200,000 miles than a brand new VW.
Interesting.
Man that is a tough one. Stellantis PHEVs have not been doing well these days. But VW is VW.
Will any current Stellantis vehicle make it to 200k? I feel like this might be a zero sum game (yes, I know that’s not what that means).
Agreed, but “Any other brand?” No. HELL NO. One of the big three would turn it into a monumental flop, and you know who Im talking about lol.
However, I think GM would handle it well, given thier lack of a Bronco/Wrangler fighter and good scale of current EV stuff.
On the other hand, Toyota could enter the EV sphere while keeping the “Toyota” name off of the EV’s.
See my reply above.
People seem to forget that I’ve been a satisfied Stellantis product owner for nearly a decade now.
Do you mean FCA? Stellantis has only been around since 2021 and the difference between the two is not insignificant.
It was FCA at the time yes, but I don’t see how the corporate ownership change has made any difference to US market products.
That might be true if the products you own haven’t changed since the merger, which is certainly possible. But it’s a bit unwise to say corporate ownership doesn’t affect overall brand direction and, in turn, lower-level decisions that ultimately affect the products offered.
TBH. I would buy a Power Wagon over any VW myself.
GM could screw up a wet dream.
Evidence: The killing of Holden.
Ask anyone who has an SS, or even a G8 or GTO2 what they think of their car.
(I think)You will be hard pressed to find a single one who doesn’t have a positive response.
Interesting! When/how did you deal with NLRB? What happened?
I’m sympathetic with that but “break everything” isn’t a solution, and team “purge the federal government” has no constructive agenda whatsoever.
It’s unclear to me whether this hold music story is made up or not, but either way, when you find the group proposing to carefully go through every office in the government and make them work better, I’ll be happy to vote for them. No such option is on the ballot this year.
#2 this group absolutely does not exist. The people you are referring to are outright promising chaos, and when they had control in the past made the government less effective and more corrupt.
Did you vote for your Article I Representatives who are responsible for raising and spending revenue and paying our debts? If you didn’t, then you inherently gave your “consent”. If you did, talk to your Representative. If they can’t effectively negotiate on your behalf with the remaining 434 Representatives they are required to work with, ask them why not.
The Article I Senators and Article II just executes the spending Article I required. Sequestration didn’t work the last time we tried it.
Like it or not, a tremendous number of people’s livelihoods and lives depend on the current structure of the federal government, enough that “break everything” would give any reformers a lot less civilization to work with to build it back up. I’m all for fixing stuff and I have a lot of complaints about how things work now, but nobody has advanced a coherent and believable vision of how to do so. Break Stuff is a Limp Bizkit song, not a governance philosophy.
I recognize the possibility that things can be changed in a way that makes them worse. You seem to believe that any change would be for the better.
This is our fundamental disagreement, then. I think things can get a whole lot worse than they are now. My kids are safe (unless somebody decides to 2nd Amendment their school), have been vaccinated against all sorts of terrible diseases, and have everything they need day to day.
There are significant potential downsides to burning it all down. Nothing magically prevents the USA from turning into Venezuela.
Sorry for the side tangent…
Why are they called Cheerios? They are the saddest of all cereals.
In my house, they are called Unhappios.
My guess is that no committee was involved in choosing the On Hold music.
Someone had that responsibility, so they went and found whatever music they could legally use for free.
Don’t they use “Cisco Opus 1” like every other major group that also uses Cisco phone systems? Because it’s the default option on install. There’s an entire This American Life about this. I wish they would get a group together, because “Cisco Opus 1” haunts my dreams.
There are definitely problems that need to fixed, though I think you and I might disagree on what that looks like. Thanks for sharing a bit and I understand why you don’t want to talk about it.
BYD or some other Chinese company will be setting up shop in those closed VW plants faster than Spirit Halloween can hang a sign on an empty building.
VW should be like Tom Bodett, and “Leave the light on for [’em]”.
Funny you say that when OYO just bought out Motel 6.
That might provide more employment security long term for the factory workers, but probably not at the wages they are used to
This is as unfortunate as it is accurate.
Bring back the TDI’s.
I mean they do own Scania and they make Diesel Semis that don’t need DEF.
If they could apply that tech to passenger Diesels it would be a gamechanger.
Sad thing is the S13’s (which is the US version of the Scania DC13) in Internationals have DEF and all the aftertreatment fuss (and they have constant issues with those systems).
The guys at Edison motors up in Canada went with Scania because it doesn’t need DEF to meet emissions up there at least. Maybe US emissions are a lot more strict than Canadian emissions.
I am no EPA expert or emissions expert but the US, if I am not mistaken, has required DEF and DPF on all new diesel semis and busses since like 2015 or something like that. Also has anyone done a study on the emissions put out from the production of DEF? Haha
Needlessly complex and expensive for minimal running cost savings (if any) vs a hybrid.
There’s a reason no one else offers a passenger car diesel in North America anymore and they are in the process of vanishing from everything smaller than a 3/4 ton truck.
To me the point of a diesel engine has always been more about the longevity of the engine rather than the small amount of fuel savings
Setting aside the fact that a modern small diesel is not a simple mechanical injection tractor engine, in an era when even the humblest subcompact is likely to make it to 200,000 miles with minimal maintenance, how much of a benefit would this be to the average buyer?
I bought my Golf TDI 6MT because it was actually fun to drive. Even more fun with a warranty-compliant tune and good tires. I miss that car. 100K miles and zero problems.
I’d love to tell a story about my Sportwagen TDI having no issues, but that would be a lie. That said, I stupidly love mine, and now that I know a good deal more about it I’m expecting to get around the 300k mark. A guy I know here in town has 500k on his, but that seems a little unlikely
Eh, noone makes a manual Hybrid anymore, and besides the First Gen Honda Insight all the manual transmission Hybrids have been fairly inefficient for Hybrids.
Chevrolet was making the Cruze diesel with a manual transmission not too long ago.
Personally I prefer a manual transmission to an automatic one, even in fuel efficient vehicles.
For me while I like diesels I mostly like them for their electronic simplicity, which is mostly lacking today due to the move to EFI from mechanical fuel injection.
Honestly with the time to market it takes for modern automobiles and me leaving the mass produced automobile market by 2026 it’s unlikely anyone will mass produce a new car that I want, sadly due to mandatory self driving regs that kick in fully by 2026 and without complications as soon as November 2024. So for me any automotive preferences I’d want in a new vehicle are mostly worthless as I won’t buy a car with ANY level of self driving, including AEB.
Yeah, I’ve got a 2014 Sportwagen TDI and while I absolutely love it, I can see why diesel passenger cars are becoming a thing of the past. Hell, the current Jetta almost matches the fuel economy of my diesel, on regular gas.
It was a great deal for me because I got a dieselgate warranty (which I never used) and a low mileage vehicle, in the configuration I wanted (manual, wagon) in the interior/exterior colors I wanted. With great financing. As a used car, it was an excellent value proposition.
But with today’s hybrids and more efficient gas engines, there’s not much of a reason to sell them new.