VW Fights the 2025 CAFE Law. Yes, Beetle-Loving Volkswagen

By · August 05, 2011

Volkswagen JETTA

The VW Jetta TDI is a mileage champ at 40 mpg on the highway, but gets no CAFE respect. (VW photo)

Of all companies, it’s Volkswagen (home of the Beetle) that’s fighting the recently acclaimed-by-all-hands 54.5 mpg Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard for 2025. Why? VW makes mostly cars and diesels, and the proposal as loopholed favors trucks and disses diesels.

Surely, VW will sell a lot of fuel-efficient Jettas and Passats with this deal, right? Sure, but it also won't get much credit for the green diesels it produces. I’ve got some respect for VW’s stance here, which reminds us that the process isn’t over just because automakers, regulators and Obama held hands and sang “Kumbiya” at the White House. The actual final number won’t be announced until September, and then there’s a comment period.

VW’s U.S. CEO Jonathan Browning told Ward’s that the company has “a dialogue going with the administration in terms of how we think the policy needs to be adjusted.” Something tells me that other automakers, some of whom (looking at you, Ford) fought down to the wire to get the best possible deal, won’t like the idea of backroom negotiations after everyone agreed to the current loopholes and adjustments.

In a statement, Tony Cervone, a VW vice president, was pugnacious, “Volkswagen does not endorse the proposal under discussion,” he said. “It places an unfairly high burden on passenger cars, while allowing special compliance flexibility for heavier light trucks.

"Passenger cars would be required to achieve five percent annual improvements, and light trucks 3.5 percent annual improvements. The largest trucks carry almost no burden for the 2017-2020 timeframe, and are granted numerous ways to mathematically meet targets in the outlying years without significant real-world gains.”

That’s actually totally true, and it’s the price Obama paid to get a deal with the Big Three. VW is coming at this from the left, claiming that it wants the proposals to be greener, encouraging more diesels and closing truck loopholes. It seems to be calling for all vehicles, including trucks, to make a five percent fuel economy improvement. Those tweaks would totally encourage automakers to produce more hybrids and electrics, since they’d find it harder to reach 54.5 any other way with the loopholes closed.

Some VW models in the U.S. market are 80 percent diesel, and a Passat so-equipped gets 43 mpg. But VW complains that the laws as written offer “no consideration” for offering diesels. That shows how U.S.-centric the CAFE rules are, since European governments (especially France, where they’re 70 percent of the motor pool) bend over backwards to encourage diesels.

It wouldn’t surprise me if some kind of diesel incentive comes out of these smoke-filled-room discussions. But the incentives for the trucks and SUVs, those are going to stay in place. It’s a loophole big enough to drive a gas guzzler through, and that’s just what Detroit is going to do.

There are other things that need reforming as part of CAFE, including the fact that the test procedures date, incredibly, to the 1970s, and actually give cars credit for 25 percent more fuel economy than they actually offer. It's confusing, because the window sticker tests are separate, and actually much better than they used to be. For CAFE, they have cars running at a steady 48 mph (on the highway!) with no stopping and no air conditioning or radio. It's simulated in the lab, so the conditions are even better than that indicates.

The Sierra Club is incensed about the testing procedures, though it may have a hard time getting much traction on the issue. Congress would have to approve any reform, and that's the furthest thing from its collective mind at the moment.

Comments

· · 6 years ago

"For CAFE, they have cars running at a steady 48 mph (on the highway!)"

Jim, where did you get this? This is not true. The test runs at an AVERAGE speed of 48.2 mph. It reaches a top speed of 60 mph. It is not steady state.

"It's simulated in the lab, so the conditions are even better than that indicates."

This is not true either. Of course, the tests are run in the lab or there would not be any test to test consistency. Coefficient of aerodynamic drag, frontal area, static friction, and vehicle mass are entered into the dynamometer computer to simulate on-road loads. Just because the car is not physically moving, doesn't mean loads are removed from the drivetrain.

· · 6 years ago

Loopholes, loopholes :(

Here is a very complex "footprint" formula:
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/fe.php
In this formula somebody (who?) will have to put four new values each year!!!
For 2011 it requires Ford Escape with 45 square feet footprint to meet 27 MPG CAFE target. while Chevy Silverado with 65 square feet footprint has to meet 22 MPG CAFE target.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TargetMPG.jpg

What are the target for 2012- 2025? I have no idea - because there are seems to be four unknown variables!

It looks like VW knows what are the variables because it claims that "The largest trucks carry almost no burden for the 2017-2020 time frame"

I can only say that this formulas are complex and indeed one can hide loopholes in it. :( May be they were created for this very reason - nobody understands what is this so nobody can argue against it.

I appeal to make CAFE simple!
One CAFE target for the whole fleet of vehicles! No exceptions!

· · 6 years ago

Here is another loophole:
CAFE MPG requirements:
Year: Cars, So called "Trucks"
2016: 39.0, 30
2017: 41.0 (5%), 31 (3.5%)
2018: 43.0, 32.1
2019: 45.1, 33.3
2020: 47.4, 34.4
2021: 49.8, 35.6
2022: 52.3, 37.4 (5%)
2023: 54.9, 39.3
2024: 57.6, 41.2
2025: 60.5, 43.3
How did they come up with 54.5 MPG average? It looks more like
(60.5 + 43.3) / 2 = 51.9 MPG (or even less because there are more so called "trucks" than cars)

Anyway here is the loophole: there is no gas only car that comes close to 60.5 MPG.
But there is a gas only so called "Truck" - Nissan Juke that has CAFE rating of 39.4 MPG. Making it a little bit lighter and with a direct injection engine will enable it easily achieve 43.3 2025 CAFE requirements!

So in 2025 we will see no gas only cars (or only very expensive ones) - all cars will be hybrids or plug-ins. And the least expensive vehicles will be some kind of gas only Nissan Juke (so called "truck") that will achieve EPA 30 MPG - less than Honda Civic or Ford Focus today. And most of the people will buy it because it will be the least expensive one :(

Mark my word: the market share of the "trucks" will reach 75% in 2025 with this regulation.

· · 6 years ago

Here I found it: Chevy Silverado is required to achieve only 24.7 CAFE MPG in 2016!!! :
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/420f10014.htm

Only 2.7 MPG more than in 2011!!!

It is probably required to achieve not much more in 2020 that is why VW says: "The largest trucks carry almost no burden for the 2017-2020 time frame".

Loopholes, loopholes! :(

Large trucks will be cheap and "It’s a loophole big enough to drive a gas guzzler through, and that’s just what Detroit is going to do." :(

· · 6 years ago

Yegor, Juke is already turbo charged GDI.

If you want to see what the OEMs can do rapidly regarding fuel economy, check out the 2012 Hyundai Accent versus the same 2011 model. For 2012 the new Accent offers 1.6L GDI engine, electric power steering, low rolling resistance tires, a lower coefficient of drag, and a six-speed manual. This all results in an 18.1% fuel economy improvement, from 34 MPG to 40 MPG.

· Larry, Richmond VA (not verified) · 6 years ago

Really excellent article. You didn't hear anything about the loopholes and antiquated testing methods in reports from the mainstream press.

· · 6 years ago

I personally know a person who bought a a Dodge Ram truck two month ago (and it is in Canada where fuel is $5 a gallon) because he bought a boat and will tow it once in while. Now he is commuting it to work 60 miles every day!!!
You can buy right now a Dodge Ram truck (14 mpg city / 20 mpg hwy) on sale for $18,000!!! (for the price of Ford Focus (28 mpg city / 40 mpg hwy)):
http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/incentives/index.html?modelYearCode=CUT20111...

Dodge Journey V6 (17 mpg city/25 mpg hwy) on sale will cost you $4,000 more - $22,000

It is just wrong - a vehicle that consumes more fuel should cost more!
Unfortunately most of the people just look on vehicle price when they buy a vehicle - they do not calculate the cost of fuel consumption. :(

· · 6 years ago

And now Chevy Silverado is required to achieve only 24.7 CAFE MPG in 2016 (it is already doing it) - while smaller vehicles will be required to achieve much more. It means that smaller vehicles price will go even more up while Chevy Silverado price will stay the same. It means that even much more people will buy a Chevy Silverado! It is just plain wrong and stupid!!!

There should one CAFE target for the whole fleet of vehicles! No exceptions! The more fuel consuming vehicle should cost more - no exceptions!

· · 6 years ago

States, like California, who want to encourage increased efficient vehicles should use their vehicle registration fees as a mechanism. Maybe something like (50 - EPA combined MPG) * $30. So a 40 MPG vehicle would pay $300 and a 20 MPG vehicle would pay $900 to register their vehicles.

· · 6 years ago

Here is Dodge MSRP lowest V6 pricing:
Dodge Avenger V6 (19 mpg city/ 29 mpg hwy): $23,840
Dodge Nitro V6 (16 mpg city/ 22 mpg hwy): $22,245
Dodge RAM 1500 V6 (14 mpg city/ 20 mpg hwy): $20,810

Shouldn't it be just the opposite? Like this:
Dodge Avenger V6 (19 mpg city/ 29 mpg hwy): $20,810
Dodge Nitro V6 (16 mpg city/ 22 mpg hwy): $22,245
Dodge RAM 1500 V6 (14 mpg city/ 20 mpg hwy): $23,840

The law that suppose to encourage fuel efficiency does just the opposite - discourages it!!!
If you think about it - it is just ridiculous! :(

· · 6 years ago

@Yegor,
Aren't you ready to give up on counting on the government to solve the problems then? Clearly, after over 3 year of trying, they still haven't gotten it right. Maybe the problem is that these are problems that are beyond the ability of the government to handle.
Maybe no government fuel economy controls are better than that ones that have been subject to all sorts of scrutiny by all special interest groups, including those who profit off of waste.

· · 6 years ago

@ex-EV1 driver · "Aren't you ready to give up on counting on the government to solve the problems then?"

The problem is the way lobbying works in this country. A big company like Ford has a lot more say in the government than millions of consumers. Government can't solve the problems if we big money has a big say.

· · 6 years ago

@ex-EV1 driver,
I do agree with you that no CAFE law as it is actually much better right now!!! Fleet fuel economy would improve!
If we did not have CAFE the vehicles would cost like this by itself:
Dodge Avenger V6 (19 mpg city/ 29 mpg hwy): $20,810
Dodge Nitro V6 (16 mpg city/ 22 mpg hwy): $22,245
Dodge RAM 1500 V6 (14 mpg city/ 20 mpg hwy): $23,840
Just because Nitro is bigger than Avenger and RAM is bigger than Nitro - there more materials and work involved to build them.

Right now people who buy fuel efficient vehicles are actually subsidizing gas guzzlers! How evil is it? :( Oh man, those loopholes lobbing groups are evil! :(

But I do think that having one CAFE law for the whole fleet of vehicles without any exceptions would have been beneficial because it would encourage development and sales of fuel efficient vehicles otherwise most of the people tend just to buy cheap cars - hybrids and plugin would not go above 3% market share - most of the people would buy gas only cars until gas hits hits $10 per gallon mark and we all be in a deep economic depression.

· · 6 years ago

"I do think that . . . "
What you don't realize is that what you think doesn't make anything happen when the government does something. Instead, everything is a compromise, almost directly proportional to the political strength of all interested parties. With some standing to gain $billions by a particular outcome, it is hard for simple folk who don't have vested interests to have much influence.
There is a need for separation of powers between Federal, State, County, City, and Personal jurisdictions because some things are just too important to be left, all or nothing, to a large centralized, totalitarian, government.

· · 6 years ago

Another interesting statistics that shows how the current CAFE is wrong is heavy truck sales. They went down almost twice in the last 4 years from 2 millions to 1 million per year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_F-Series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Silverado
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Ram

The sales started to go down when the price of fuel started to go up in 2007. This trend cannot be explained by recession because if a business needs a truck it cannot wait for 4 years for a new one - it can wait a year or two but not 4 years - the old truck will just fall apart.
It means that all these extra million heavy trucks per year people were buying for personal needs! but when the price of fuel went up they stopped buying it and went to something smaller.

Still there lots of people (like a person I know who bought a heavy truck 2 months ago) who cannot do a simple math and continue to buy them because they are cheaper.

All this shows that CAFE in the current form simply has the opposite effect - it encourages people to buy gas guzzlers! :(

· · 6 years ago

Yep, in 1979 before CAFE really kicked real trucks that people really needed for commercial use made up only 10% of all vehicles sales - 1,164,676 (see page 4 in the doc below):
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2011_Summary_Report...

Yes, this whole extra million per year of gas guzzling heavy trucks for personal use was created by CAFE loophole. :(

· · 6 years ago

Thanks, Jim, for this article and Yegor for your followup comments. I was certainly brought up to speed (uh . . . 48mph?) on the fine points.

It appears that the currently proposed CAFE standards are going to be about as contentious as the recently completed congressional debt ceiling negotiations.

On the political right, you're going to get opposition for any new CAFE standards, as it is simply perceived as government intervention. Their position never changes.

On the political left, the argument is more nuanced . . . yes, bring back some regulation here, but don't trick us all and fill it full of truck loopholes. This would be very sad if it were implemented as it stands.

· · 6 years ago

They should just remove all the loopholes - and have a simple weighted average of EPA rated mpg of all vehicles sold. If 54 mpg is too high for that - reduce it. What is the point of high numbers with large loopholes ?

· richmond2000 (not verified) · 6 years ago

I say a FEE-BATE system based on MPG IE 30 MPG no cost no rebate BUT $10K surcharge @ 15 MPG or less and 10K rebate @ point of sale for pure EV cars and variable range in between and GET rid of cafe [b]AND "truck class crash standards" [/B]
and another point is the "TRADIES" that NEED "heavy" work Vehicles will benefit the most from FE improvements as 15 to 20 MPG is way more money then 35 to 40 is + the higher driving Tradies doand do not have alternatives (load 1000 Lbs of concrete on a transit bus :-)

· · 6 years ago

@indyflick,
"States, like California, who want to encourage increased efficient vehicles should use their vehicle registration fees as a mechanism."

Don't encourage more tax abuse of the citizens in California. We have enough taxes. Our economy here is bad enough with the second highest unemployment rate in the nation, and the lowest debt rating. The money is just squandered.

· · 6 years ago

@Yegor,
"And now Chevy Silverado is required to achieve only 24.7 CAFE MPG in 2016 (it is already doing it)"

It's so easy to sit on the sidelines and bad mouth anything and everything, but it is much more difficult to come of with real, workable, affordable solutions that people will buy.

The only Silverado model that achieves what you are saying is the 2WD Hybrid.

So what's your solution?

1) Make everyone buy a hybrid model for $10,000 extra.
2) Make everyone buy a diesel model for $7000 extra

Trucks don't have the same solutions as cars. You can't cut the size, or it won't haul what people want. We already mid-sized pickups, and they don't actually get that much better economy than full sized ones.

Can't do a whole lot for aerodynamics, because it is a pickup truck. The Silverado Hybrids use a tonneau cover to get 1 mph better highway mileage, but that is not practical for most working people, who haul lumber, pipes, etc. GM has lowered the trucks and put longer chin spoilers on, but you can only go so far, before the approach, departure, and breakover angles get too low. You already have to remove the chin spoiler on the Hybrid 4WD model to go offroad.

Trucks need more radiator air because they run at much higher loads than cars, especially when towing, which means they have large intake grilles. That limits aerodynamics.

Can't do much with weight, because it won't have enough strength to hold heavy loads, and towing could get downright dangerous, with the "tail wagging the dog".

Hybrids are limited to only 6100 pounds towing (2WD), 5900 in 4WD. That doesn't cut it for a lot of people. Dodge's PHEV prototype is limited to 6000 pounds towing.

What's left? Essentially, small incremental improvements in drivetrain efficiency. 3.5% a year is a lot.

Do you honestly think VW has some sort of altruistic motive here? No. They want to put most of their big competitors at a disadvantage, because they don't sell pickup trucks as GM, Ford, Dodge, Toyota, and Nissan do.

· Chris T. (not verified) · 6 years ago

It's really much more straightforward than we (in the US) make it: we just need a gradually increasing fuel tax that takes the stuff up to $10/gal by the target period. Use the extra money to reduce other taxes (such as income tax), so that the net effect on the average worker with the average commute is about $0.

· · 6 years ago

@Michael,
"Do you honestly think VW has some sort of altruistic motive here? No. They want to put most of their big competitors at a disadvantage, because they don't sell pickup trucks as GM, Ford, Dodge, Toyota, and Nissan do."

The companies that sell large pickup trucks as GM, Ford, Dodge, Toyota, and Nissan will benefit the most from NO EXCEPTIONS CAFE.

Let me explain. For example let us say that it costs $23,000 for VW and Ford to produce a small 50 mpg fuel efficient Hybrid like Toyota Prius and $23,000 to produce a large gas only truck like F-150.

VW produces only small fuel efficient cars while Ford produces all kinds of vehicles.

To meet CAFE fleet target Ford has to discourage people from buying gas guzzlers so it has to raise the price of Ford F-150 by $1,000 dollars to $24,000 and at the same time he can use this $1,000 dollars to reduce the price of its 50 mpg small hybrid $23,000 - $1,000 = $22,000

Here we go Ford just sold two vehicles F-150 for $24,000 and small 50 mpg hybrid for $22,000 while VW sold none because his 50 mpg small hybrid costs $23,000 and is $1,000 more expensive than Fords.

Ford, GM, Chrysler fight for status quo because it profits them but they do not realize that NO EXCEPTIONS CAFE would be even more profitable for them. How ironic is that? But we all have to suffer :(

· · 6 years ago

@Michael,
"Don't encourage more tax abuse of the citizens in California. We have enough taxes. Our economy here is bad enough with the second highest unemployment rate in the nation, and the lowest debt rating. The money is just squandered."

We had a Republican governor for over seven years who drove the state into the tank. Big lesson there. But we are scratching our way out of that hole. California's debt rating outlook was raised by S&P last month.

· · 6 years ago

While I generally agree with your position, Indyflick, citing Standard & Poor's as a financial outlook reference for California is a bit unfortunate, given the events of this past weekend. In addition to being off by 2 trillion dollars in regards to their U-S Government downgrade on Friday, these are the same no-nothings who gave their AAAs to the most egregious violators of the 2008 financial meltdown.

· · 6 years ago

@indyflick,
"We had a Republican governor for over seven years who drove the state into the tank. Big lesson there. But we are scratching our way out of that hole. California's debt rating outlook was raised by S&P last month."

That guy wasn't a Republican. He was a Democrat with an (R) next to his name. All he did for seven years was pander to the Democrats, after he lost his ballot initiative to the big unions. His final act was to grant a pardon to the son of his Democrat buddy, Speaker of the House, Fabian Nunez.

The Democrats have controlled the California Legislature for 30 years. The state is a train wreck. It's broke, over taxed, and businesses are getting out. Giving more money to this state is like giving it to children. You'll never see it again.

· · 6 years ago

@Yegor,
"To meet CAFE fleet target Ford has to discourage people from buying gas guzzlers so it has to raise the price of Ford F-150 by $1,000 dollars to $24,000 and at the same time he can use this $1,000 dollars to reduce the price of its 50 mpg small hybrid $23,000 - $1,000 = $22,000"

The problem with this strategy is it doesn't motivate the car companies to build better small cars. Smaller fuel efficient cars need to be well built to create demand. Detroit has finally learned this, after decades, and now builds small cars that are as good or better than the competition. There is already little profit in small cars, and lowering the price even further just turns the car into a loss. Subsidizing doesn't make a small car line suddenly profitable.

What happens if gas prices spike, and no one wants to buy big trucks, and they want small cars? Now the car company goes bankrupt. This has already happened. Have we learned nothing?

I already know people who drive long distances who have switched from large and even mid-sized pickups to compact cars, because gas got too expensive for their commutes. I ran into one person who now rides a motorcycle, instead of taking his car to work. The average person can't afford $120 a week in gas. That's over $6000 a year, after tax! The gas guzzler era is over.

· · 6 years ago

@Michael,
"That guy wasn't a Republican. He was a Democrat with an (R) next to his name."

Not true. Recall he drove a Hummer and talked about environment issues. Therefore, by definition, he was a hypocrite and being a hypocrite is a Republican prerequisite. Also he was a "B" actor, just like Ronald Reagan. I know, I know Ronald Reagan was also originally a liberal Democrat and the president of the Screen Actors Guild union. That's right a union... ouch.

· · 6 years ago

One more interesting comparison:
1. Ford Fusion Base V6 (20 mpg city, 28 mpg hwy ), tows 0 lbs (done on purpose to make people buy trucks): $24,425 + 10 year fuel cost ($24,200) = $48,625
2. Ford Escape Base V6 (19 mpg city, 25 mpg hwy ), tows 3,500 lbs: $25,865 + 10 year fuel cost ($26,490) = $52,355
3. Ford Explorer Base V6 (17 mpg city, 25 mpg hwy ), tows 5,000 lbs: $28,170 + 10 year fuel cost ($27,830) = $56,000
4. Ford F-150 Base V6 (17 mpg city, 23 mpg hwy ), tows 5,500 lbs: $22,790 + 10 year fuel cost ($29,270) = $52,060

1. Not only F-150 $3,000 less expensive than Escape but the difference is big enough to justify cost of 10 years worth of fuel!! This is really bad! F-150 offers much more towing capacity.
2. Escape offers much less towing capacity than F-150 so to get something equal to F-150 you have to buy Explorer and it will cost $6,380 more upfront! and even in 10 years you are still in minus by $4,000.
3. Fusion does not allow any towing capacity at all although it has the best fuel economy - it consumes 20% less than F-150. The only reason Fusion does not allow any towing capacity it is designed to force people to buy so called Trucks. :(

All this wrong and has to change the more fuel efficient vehicles should cost less - not the other way around!
Fusion should be offered as a Wagon as well, for the price less than F-150 and with different towing capacities.

· · 6 years ago

@Michael,
Of course this strategy is not something to relay upon - it is just a bonus - any auto company should always strife to produce better in all ways cars.
I just showed that Ford, GM and Chrysler are not in disadvantage with No Exceptions CAFE - vice versa - they will be in advantage.

Yes, most of the buyers switch to fuel efficient cars when the price of fuel goes up but I do not agree that gas guzzler era is over - when the price of fuel goes down (like recently) many people start to buy gas guzzlers again.

Also what is a gas guzzler? In my opinion even Ford Fusion V6 gas only is a gas guzzler as well. Ford Fusion V6 Hybrid would not be a gas guzzler. So close to 40% of new vehicles today (SUV, crossovers, trucks for personal use) are gas guzzlers that are encouraged by the CAFE loopholes (I do understand that some commercial businesses do need real trucks - 10% of all vehicle sales, but today market share of trucks and large vans is way higher at 16%)

· · 6 years ago

I'm tired of all this gas discussion. This is PLUGIN cars.com.
A Prius is a horrific gas guzzler in my opinion. Let's just get the antiquated dinosaurs off of the morning and evening commutes altogether.
Oops, this new CAFE Law encourages 90% of a manufacturers production to be gas guzzlers.
The only thing that 50 mpg average does that 15 mpg doesn't is ensure that the baby-boomers won't actually have to deal with the problem.
Either your kids, or your grandkids will suffer from not having the mobility that your society does. If you care at all about them then you should be pushing to find an alternative, not just milk what gas you have left until you die.
Let's just quit with CAFE altogether it just gives people the mis-guided feeling that it is helping when it actually hurts in both the long and short term.

· · 6 years ago

@Brad Berman
Here are the full graphs of CAFE requirements for all vehicles for 2012-2025!!!
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2017-2025_CAFE-GHG_...

Large trucks (Ford-150, etc) requirements at CAFE 24.7 MPG stays the same until 2022!!!
By 2019 Large trucks would be the only new vehicles that will be able to meet CAFE as ICE only (none hybrid) vehicles.

Brad, this is interesting. Could create a post on it with the pictures of the graphs for discussion?

· · 6 years ago

I pulled CAFE 2012-2025 numbers from the graphs in here
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2017-2025_CAFE-GHG_...

and put it in Wikipedia CAFE article along with EPA equivalent numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

Take a look if you are interested.

· Brian Cooke (not verified) · 6 years ago

It looks like VW knows what are the variables because it claims that "The largest trucks carry almost no burden for the 2017-2020 time frame"

· · 5 years ago

hi mike i just read that "The Silverado Hybrids use a tonneau cover to get 1 mph better highway mileage, but that is not practical for most working people, who haul lumber, pipes, etc". but do you know how they install that one? and addition to that is that car have a very good seat cover protection?

New to EVs? Start here

  1. Seven Things To Know About Buying a Plug-In Car
    A few simple tips before you visit the dealership.
  2. Incentives for Plug-in Hybrids and Electric Cars
    Take advantage of credits and rebates to reduce EV costs.
  3. Buying Your First Home EV Charger
    You'll want a home charger. Here's how to buy the right one.