New Fuel Economy Standards for Heavy Duty Trucks Will Raise Efficiency and Prices

By Larry Edsall for

How much would the new federal regulations for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans add to the cost of that F-Ramarado HD you’ll need to buy in a few years?

The additional technologies needed to satisfy the proposed fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas regulations submitted by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency "are estimated to add costs of approximately $1,249 to $1,592 for [model year] 2018 heavy-duty pickups and vans," according to the proposal, which now is open to public comment.

That’s it? What about the $15,000 price bump we were dreading?

The DOT and EPA said their goals of a 15 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and improved fuel economy for diesel-powered HD pickups and a 10 percent change for gasoline trucks can be achieved without radically expensive technology. An additional 2 percent improvement in fuel efficiency is expected from new “direct air conditioning leakage standards,” the agencies said.

While the DOT and EPA estimate it will cost around $500 to reduce the weight of each HD pickup by some 5 percent, they forecast the use of eight-speed automatic transmissions should add only $231 to the price of a new truck, that improving aerodynamics should cost around $50, and installation of electric or electro/hydraulic power steering will add around $110 per vehicle.

Additional engine technology, including cylinder deactivation and gasoline direct injection, could add another $700 to the cost of the gasoline-fueled engines used in HD pickups. Diesel engines will need less than $300 in upgrades, the agencies estimate.

The fear of a price bump in the $15,000 range emerged from a recent report by The National Academies. That 414-page document, which was part of the DOT and EPA’s regulation-development process, suggested ways to improve HD pickup fuel efficiency by as much as 44.5 percent, which would be a more expensive undertaking than meeting the targets set by the DOT and EPA.

HD pickup truck producers are studying the proposed regulations.

"GM has worked closely with the EPA on these new standards, and we look forward to working with the agency through the rules’ technical details," General Motors said in a statement. "As a result, GM will have product plans that will ensure our heavy-duty pickup trucks and full-size vans meet the new fuel economy requirements and still deliver the performance and utility the customers of these trucks need and expect."

A representative from Ford said the company is reviewing the lengthy recommendations and will be an eager participant in the public comment period.

"We’re currently reviewing the proposal, and it would be premature to comment on the impact it would have on our heavy-duty trucks," a representative from Ram said.

One aspect of the regulations that manufacturers are considering is a proposal by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for HD pickup producers to "select one of two fuel consumption standard alternatives for model years 2016 and later. Manufacturers would select an alternative at the same time they submit the model year 2016 Pre-Certification Compliance Report; and, once selected, the alternative would apply for model years 2016 and later, and could not be reversed."

The new HD pickup regulations are part of a 673-page proposal for new heavy-duty vehicle rules that would cover everything from HD pickups to cement mixers, garbage trucks and semis.

Between 2014 and 2018, the new HD pickup truck and van regulations would save 2.2 billion gallons of petroleum, the DOT and EPA predict. By comparison, for that same period, new regulations for, say, sleeper-cab semis are expected to save 10.4 billion gallons.

In May, President Barack Obama called on the DOT and EPA to include work trucks – medium- and heavy-duty vehicles – under the fuel economy and emissions umbrella that already spans passenger cars and light-duty trucks. The proposal includes the agencies’ regulation recommendations.

The 60-day period of public comment includes public hearings Nov. 15 in Chicago and Nov. 18 in Cambridge, Mass.



What does this section of the article mean?

"One aspect of the regulations that manufacturers are considering is a proposal by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for HD pickup producers to "select one of two fuel consumption standard alternatives for model years 2016 and later."

What are the two fuel consumption alternatives they are referring to?

@Tucker: It's a bit complex and I'm running to the airport. Here's a link to the details of the standards. (see page 29 of 673, 3rd paragraph)

I'm sorry I don't have time to go beyond very high level details at this point.

We'll have more info on this topic in the near future. It's important to all of us and we're still digesting the proposed standards.

The EPA screws us over again!!! There not about clean air, there about political agendas...

Is it me or every time they propose efficiency standards and or clean air targets for diesels efficiency goes down... we all know that with most diesels if you use a DPF delete plate and rip out the environmental crap there are guys running 25mpg + with their HD's and Super Duties right now. So I ask this question yet again, wouldn't it make more sense (as far as HD pickups go not 18 wheelers) to let them pollute just a little more and save a ton of fuel instead of trying to clean the air but in the process burning more fuel which some polluting refinery has to make more of?

That is the paradox of all paradox's right there.

@ Shawn - great point.
I'm as confused as the next guy about all this. Especially what @Tucker pointed out.

I found this comment disturbing as well:

Exerpt "GM has worked closely with the EPA on these new standards".

More fuel to the fire - brings new meaning to the term: "Government Motor Corporation".

Why not fuel efficient truck isn't bad for us.

To Shawn you can remove many equipment on diesel engines and get better milleage but if you increase pollutants what's the point. I mean CO and NOx and other polluting gases.
Police should check for unplugged equipment and seize the truck if something is wrong and then with a hefty fine stupid asses will stop to play with their trucks.

$15,000 was also factoring hybrid truck and alot of extras.
but with FORD they are getting 15-20% with the new 2011 as little as 450$ on the base line f-150 going from model year 2010 to 2011 (at least 23MPG for the 3.7L v6) and 450$ plus the 1700$ on the the ecoboost MPG ???

so i would put it from 450 - 2150 in
when you compare the ecoboost 2011 to the 5.4l 2010 model its about the same in cost just a little more

so the final cost would be 500$ more and if FORD is already doing it so will GM and DODGE will follow
plus i am already saving up to buy a F-150 in a year when they start discount a little. if GM OR DODGE did it first they would have my money but i have to replace my 13-16MPG truck now
bec we all know gas is going to over $4 and diesel is going to $5

When will they just change direction of this whole thing? If we continue this way, in 2030 we will have a 12 liter diesel that costs $60,000 to build. Can't we just have electric motors doing the work now? It has been proven a pickup could get 50-80 mpgs with an electric motor with onboard generator. At some point, it is going to be cheaper to do this.

Just $1592 dollars? Of course this money spent will save the public $2000 a year on their health care expenses related to air pollution, they just haven't got around to pulling that figure out of their a$$e$ just yet.
We'll look back on these days with fond memories when a new truck only cost $40,000.

The EPA, DOT, CMS, HHS, CBO, GAO, and probably any other government agency that can be named has an abysmal track record in economic forecasting, budgeting, and generally fail in the actuarial sciences. In short, they suck. Medicare. Medicaid. Social Security. Military programs. Highways. On and on.

You can bet your last worthless inflation destroyed dollar that they will be equally wrong on this as well.

The real tragedy here is that not one elected official will vote on this. This is a mandate by bureaucrats that spend their day attempting to justify their existence by coming up with miserable schemes like this. Dress it up with "it's only for your well being and health", and who's going to argue?

Whether the technology is available, or even cost effective is not the point. Meddling of this sort is possible only by decree, not by consensus. GM certainly knows where its bread is buttered. To be sure, they want their butter. I'm still waiting for the perfect HD truck, one thing for sure, it won't say "Made by the EPA", anywhere on it.

@JoBlow I'm not against a truck being more clean or getting more miles per gallon at all. Anything to benefit the planet is a good thing IMHO. I'm only pointing out that with all the environmental equipment on these trucks right now its running the cost up and its a decrease in MPG's. We need trucks that can get more MPG's even if it means cutting back on some of the environmental controls until the technology has a chance to catch up with performance. I don't know about you but I would love to drive a full size truck that can get 25-30 mpg even though it might be putting out slightly higher pollutants. With Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel most of these trucks would still be "clean" and not revert back to the bad days of belching black smoke and the like. Yes I understand the need of keeping the air clean for people who have breathing problems and I fully support that but sometimes the Government goes to far in trying to police the US.

The government needs to quit worrying about our diesel trucks and stop pretending that they know everything about diesel engines. They dont know anything. CAT made some really great diesel engines, but now they dont even make any on road engines at all because of these emissions standards. CAT figured it wasnt worth the money to meet these new standards. The way the government is going now, very few companies will continue to make diesel engines. The few that do will cost an absurd amount of money. The government has to be trying to make diesel engines extinct in the US, while every other country in the world is moving towards diesel engines. Nothing beats a diesel engine, i guess maybe except the government after they do away with them. I love diesel power with no emissions control systems.

I can think of a date next week when us puppets and peons can start to fix this other-worldly endless stream of NEW RULES, REGULATIONS and FEAR BAITING that are, of course, meant to help all of us puppets and peons. I, for one, will look no more at vehicles born or spawned from back room deals from incestuous relationships that count on us to remain forever servants of their schemes. No more.

I agree with everyone that said we need more MPG...even if its at the cost of a few pollutants.

These morons are killing the auto industry. You can't keep driving the cost of new cars and trucks up, especially during a serious recession that may turn into a depression, and expect these companies to stay in business. But then again, I am not so sure that the progressives in the EPA and throughout our gov't want auto companies to stay in business. This isn't about the environment, this is about the anti-capitalist agenda of the progressives. The environment is just their excuse to do this kind of stuff. Every time I read "greenhouse gas emissions" I want to puke.

If you want to stand up against these morons, go and vote on Tuesday for candidates who will stand up to big gov't progressives, including the ones with a "R" after their name.

""GM has worked closely with the EPA on these new standards, and we look forward to working with the agency through the rules’ technical details," General Motors said in a statement."

Is it just me, or does this sound like a true GOVERNMENT MOTORS? I couldn't see a privately owned corporation saying that.

I'd rather see cleaner running trucks then increased MPG's, thier are a lot of Hicks around here that think its cool to make their HD's puff out black smoke all over the place.

@ Ben

Just think about this for a second: what good will a "new" law when already "existing" laws are not being enforced? How is failure to enforce current regulation a sound justification for the enactment of new, more oppressive regulation?

Think a little.

Don't forget that increasing your tire pressures will help in meeting the fantasized fuel savings....

The tiered emissions program killed CAT truck engines and how many thousands of associated jobs and decreased fuel economy around 25% across the board for the past 6+ years. Aren't carbon based emissions being the hot thing of the crazies and CO2 is a direct product of combustion?

Now I know why the small trucks overseas run at a Cadillac-like price! Those doggone diesels probably have all this emission-reductions technology on them, but then again, they get (reportedly) 30 or more miles per gallon.

But I'm hearing American stories about guys who took all the DPFs and other weight-gaining crap off their trucks and they get at least 25 mpgs, even if they do fart black smoke.

I thought they were doing biodiesel or something, but I never heard anything much about that lately. At least the world will be smelling like french fries?...or something...I don't care what they said they propose on protecting the environment, it's going to cost us later on one way or the other!

By the time the EPA is done, you're going to think you were driving a Lincoln Super Duty or a Cadillac Escalade EXT HD Premium! Without all this crap, a Ford Super Duty would have cost around 45-50K! I'm all for saving the planet and the environment, no doubt, but they should be mindful of a little thing we call...A RECESSION!

"Without all this crap, a Ford Super Duty would have cost around 45-50K!" I meant to specify a F350 DRW King Ranch in the last post.

Time to have a huge rally against the EPA at their headquarters, where-ever it is. This is not right we should be able to vote these politicals out of office too.

One viable solution that I didn't see mentioned is the good 'ol manual transmission. Weeding out the yuppies and soccer mommies from the truck market and putting them back into their BMW's and Hondas would save a lot of fuel.

Another idea worth looking at is specifying what r.p.m. the engine will run at, at a speed of 70 m.p.h. or so. For instance when I had my Toyota Tacoma with a 5 speed manual, it ran about 3000 r.p.m. on the highway and got around 21 m.p.g. Ditto for my current d.d., a Hyundai Elantra which also runs about 2800 r.p.m. on the highway but gets about 31 m.p.g. Since most of the horsepower and torque is around 2000 r.p.m., wouldn't it be reasonable to think that it would achieve better fuel economy at that r.p.m. at 70 m.p.h.?

The real question is will the republicans that may get the majority in the house and senate get these rules eliminated ? I would like to see all fuel mileage rules eliminated if you want a little fuel mizer car then buy one if you want a big gas guzzler buy one , its none of the governments business dictating fuel mileage .

Most motors will be at their most efficient right at the max torque rpm. Depending on the final drive axle ratio the speed at which that occurs will change due to the drivers needs of efficiency verses power. Modern transmission with more gearing will allow the best of both worlds to a point. Manual transmissions are fast becoming less efficient than the new autos. EPA certification is quite expensive and if a manufacturer can't sell enough manuals it's not cost effective to even offer them.

My guess is that in 10 years we'll all be driving 8 speed autos, possibly more than 8. Then there's CVT's. If they ever get strong enough to handle 850 ft lbs of torque that is.

To answer your question Taylor, no. I predict that if the Republicans (not the tea party wing) take back the house and senate, they will do the same as they did when they took them back in '94. Sit on their butts and let the Democrats roll over them. If Obama succeeds in eliminating the tax breaks for the "rich" then I guarantee getting those re-instated will be the at the top of the list. In fact it will be the only item on the list. Anything that actually benefits the common good is at the bottom of any politicians list.

Oh well, doesn't bother me anyhow. Too many people buy them that don't need them. Cry me a river, you want to program your diesel to smoke everyone out at a stop light upon acceleration, then pay the money and don't whine about it, you can AFFORD it anyhow if you can AFFORD a 60K dollar truck.

For the ones that use them as a business tool, you can write off certian expenses. For the rest of the people that use them as an ego boost or to make a fashion statement, pay the money and quit blaming govt or don't buy one. Easy done :)

Taylor said: "The real question is will the republicans that may get the majority in the house and senate get these rules eliminated ? I would like to see all fuel mileage rules eliminated if you want a little fuel mizer car then buy one if you want a big gas guzzler buy one , its none of the governments business dictating fuel mileage . "

You're right, it isn't...until the govt starts having to IMPORT 40% of its oil from other countries...wait, they already do that. hmmm...

@ Alex - looks like you and I are the only ones to have caught GM's statement about working closely with the EPA.
I can see why they are "working closely" together as GM and the EPA are both government agencies.

We do not need to get all up in a dander about this, only a small minority actually NEED a 3/4 ton or larger truck, hell most half tons will pull more then a 3/4 ton just a few years ago. I know people that have 3/4 ton and 1ton's that pull a small hunting trailer twice a year and the rest of the time they are just normal transportation but they are the "Look At Me" type of people. The ones that actually need them, like retired folks pulling their 5th wheeler will suffer due to the cost but business people can write them off as a tax deduction.

So, I guess I am failing to see the problem with better fuel economy? Drop the power (they went rediculous with it anyway) and work on better fuel economy. Funny, whyat worked as "power" options yore are all of a sudden snubbed to be a joke. I cannot see how Europe became such an area with the use of 50K trucks that weight in at 8K lbs. I guess they inported a bunch of HD's from America huh?

This big truck culture in the US is a joke, nothing wrong with requiring fuel economy standards IMHO when you IMPORT a large protion of your oil to fund the military and auto complexes here in the States.

What IS the problem? I am not some yahoo liberal or tree hugger either, but some of these comments on here make it seem as if the USA is going to end with higher FE requirements. If you're pissed at govt, fine, I am too for letting HC, housing, and other indsutries run amok for too long into unsustainable territory and letting our jobs go south and east in the name of a buck, but FE requirements are need here folks. Trucks of yesterday got damn near the mileage of today's trucks, although today's trucks are a bit cleaner (alot cleaner) than trucks of yore.

We cannot afford the excesses we have in this country as it is folks, take a look at the trade DEFICIT and national DEBT.

What's a few extra bucks anyway, most of people finance a truck for 5-7 yrs (because they cannot afford the LUXURY outright). Just a few extra bucks on your monthly note, why complain about it?

Don't want the FE requirements on HD trucks, don't buy a HD truck if you don't NEED it.

The ones that need it are the ones getting the shaft.

@Red_4x4 - good point.

Not everyone buys on needs alone. Some people buy on wants or desires. Do I need a 2011 EB with max tow? No. But I want one. Obama will be a one term president. So we don't know what will happen in 2018. A lot could be reserved by then. What does Pelosi know about designing a truck? I prefer companies designing vehicles than the government.

Trucks of yesterday get the same MPG as today's truck due to the EPA emissions crap and DOT safety standards AND their increased utility over trucks from 15 years ago.

With fuel at $3/ gallon and the diesel engine option running about $7k people who should be driving a focus are not buying 1 ton trucks. There may be a few people that could get by with a small SUV instead of the truck, but IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

Rolling over and saying we need fuel economy standards is letting the status quo continue. Ok EPA I'll keep bending over...the point of deminishing or negative marginal returns has been met with the EPA and diesel emission standards. They have forced people living in rural areas to pay for DPF's that reduce fuel economy and are a reliability concern, when the soot could be breathed by a cow. Where does the soot go in a regen? Into the air idiots.

They continually increase the cost of combustion engines to make electric cars seem reasonable, sorry not yet and maybe never. So why tax us to provide credits to a technology that may be a flop?

RE: "pay the money and quit blaming govt or don't buy one. Easy done :)"

It would only make sense to blame the gov't if they are making the rules...

When the gov't increase the cost of doing business here (as they have done since the 60's) blame them for the jobs outsourced to low cost countries. And blame yourself for voting for the socialists.

Mitch, I is their right. They will just have to PAY for that right. No problem.

Me, I want a truck that gets better than 20 MPG, and does not weigh in at 8K pounds or 60K dollars. So, I am untouched by this standard in this regard and could care less to be honest.

I welcome the standard, it'll get some of the posers off of the road and let the poeple that DO REAL WORK/PULL REAL LOADS own HD's/big rigs since the justification is there.

Too many got damn pickups on the road anyway with some office geek headed down town and squeezing into parking garages for his ego boost. That's why we bring in so much oil and make an arab sheik smile at each export leaving the Middle East and Hugo Chavez loves it, he rellishes the day to cut off the USA to the oil supplied by them.

But Americans, too stuborn to make sacrifices because it's.....THEIR RIGHT to dive monstosities as family movers. We needed trains, long over do now. Now, we cannot even afford them. too bad. Everyone needs to own a suburban/expedition or one ton the name of RIGHTS and SAFETY of course............


Never voted for Democrats in my life, and don't intend to. I think I may give Governor Perry (Texas Gubernatorial) a third term, not sure though. Both are SCUM. You were saying.......

Now, back on topic. Why not mandate a FE requirement? We have an Aussie on here frequently (Robert Ryan I believe) and they seem to get the work done with smaller trucks that cost more, why? How come the aussies and Europeans can get work done with small diesels and high prices, yet their economies are not doing as bad as ours? If, ours is so anti-business and all?

Jobs shipped out due to NAFTA (Which Ross Perot warned about, but was laughed at like a kook), a Republican congress- Democrat President inspired POS that has taken the jobs out of the country, due to CHEAP Labor. You want jobs back, align the payscale of Americans with that of the mexicans or Chinese. The jobs are gone for good, not to be brought back.

Maybe they should quit worrying about how FAST these trucks are and work on smaller displacement motors for them, like a 3.0-3.5 L diesel for a Chevy 1500, not the 4.5L duramax as suggested.Ford, why 800 lb/ft of torque and a 6.7L diesel engine, why not a 4.0-4.5 L diesel engine and 500 lb/ft of torque? These are the type of questions I am trying to get at. Riding a train to a destination @ 150 MPH+ is not beneath me, but beneath most americans. But the "bigger is Better" mentality to our transportation needs will continue to pile on to our already over leveraged economy via IMPORTS (oil).

I'd have to agree somewhat with @red_4x4.
How many of these trucks get sold for commercial applications?
The rest of us, myself included: buy trucks for personal/lifestyle choices.
I don't "need" a 1/2 ton 4x4 but my recreational (lifestyle) choices dictate that I must have one.
Same goes for HD trucks.

@ Red 4x4
You need to chill out and realize that not everyone buys for function. Who really cares if someone buys a diesel truck and never really uses it for their potential. This country was based on the grounds of having FREEDOM to do whatever YOU enjoyed in life. Personally, do I need a lifted diesel f250, no I don't, but thats what I enjoy in life and its what makes me happy. Its not for an ego boost or for "look at me", but it makes me happy. Just remember that its your money and you can spend it however you like regardless of what someone else thinks, so leave people like me that dont need large diesel trucks alone

I have installed many DPF delete kits. The ones we install consist of a straight pipe to replace the emmisions related stuff and a programmer. With the programmer set to economy setting you get 30 extra HP and NO SMOKE (visible smoke) at full throttle. A properly tuned truck doesn`t belch smoke. For those wondering what happens to the soot in the DPF after a regen, it is incinerated to ash and stays in the DPF untill its full. Then the DPF must be removed for replacemant or cleaning. The ash is toxic and must be handled as hazardous material. I can see the need to cut down on NOx because it causes smog and acid rain but what specificaly does the smoke harm? I am looking forward to seeing how auto makers increase efficiency while maintaining emmisions. The only thing I can think of that would lower dependence on foreign oil is to tax fuel. Make it expensive so people will not waste it. If I have `x`amount of dollars in my budget for fuel then making vehicles more efficient would likely cause me to drive more.

Once again the Government is at work to force us all into or onto bicycles !!! The lefts real agenda !! Take it from me I know !!!

@RED 4X4,

Actually the U.S.A gets most of their oil from Canada !!!

Notice how Canada's economy didnt suffer hardly !!! They drill for oil,sell it to all over the world to China and U.S.A ect....Why doesnt the U.S.A drill for oil (most oil than any country in oil reserves)Global warming is a fraud !!

If I drive a big truck that I dont use for work ,yes I work in an office !!!! Use my truck just as a commuter car... Why do people with your mentality get upset when my shiny truck truck 88,000 miles and not a scratch on it..WHY do you get upset ? Unless you are a lefty,and think people should ride bicycles and take...TRAINS !!! LOL !! No public transportation system or trains make money !!! They all are run by tax payer monies ,grants,subsidies ect...For public transit,trains to make money they will have to charge more than making a $60,000 truck payment per person per month !!! Get a clue !! And stop sniffing the glue,Mr.CluelessLefty4x4

Really bothers me with people with your attitude !! Hey,buddy its a free country !! If I want a fullsize truck I will buy one !! This new rule is to force people into small cars or off the road !! And to the guy who is starving pay cheque to paycheque and needs a Diesel truck for work,it will force him on to welfare !! It will hurt the truly needy people first !!

Actually ,I have a big problem with trains,busses and bicycles,small cars...ALL USELESS !! Thats why I bought a truck,roomy,safe,comfortable powerful tuned fullsize 12 second 1/4 mile TRUCK !!! Now I know it makes you upset...I now even feel more POWERFUL !!! My 6 ft 4 inch frame sits in my drivers seat with a huge grin on my face !! Thank You greenie4x4 !!!

I agree that there should be a 4.4 - 5.0 liter option for companies / individuals that do not tow heavy or do not need extra power in 3/4 / 1 tons. If you are wanting a smaller lighter heavy duty truck step down to a 1/2 ton. Forcing the HD trucks to fit into some kind on government diet is like telling a farmer to go back to using the model R John Deere, inefficent use of time and it makes no economic sense.

Allowing mandated requirements makes sense for cars, but the MPG of a truck can change drastically based on wind, temp, trailer type etc. Allowing the EPA another area to monitor is another expansion of government. And the EPA is "unchecked" government - there is no body that has to approve their rulings by vote or signature. Who audits the outlandish claims of man made global warming and diesel soot causes heart disease? No one.

@DEITY - people have the right to buy what they want. That I agree with.
As far as "bigger is better" or safer:
You need to read the thread on teen drivers and pickups if you think you truck is safer.
If a guy needs his truck for work - the extra expense will get passed on to you - the consumer.
We need better public transit, especially in large metropolitan centers.
I was in "the big city" on vacation this summer. The HOV (high occupany vehicle) lanes were next to empty.

We need to find a comfortable medium when it comes to personal transportation or mass transit.

When gas doubles or triples in price it will become a mute point.

The biggest reason government is worrried about running out of fuel is that the US War Machine would grind to an unceremonious halt without it.
I had read that during the active stages of the gulf war - the military was consuming in one day the equivalent of 1/2 of the domestic fuel consumption.


Cast my ballots today, voted Republican and Libertarian, no greenie here. LOL. Buy what you want, no problem here, and I don't "get upset" with what ever people buy, I could buy the same things. Just don't cry about FE standards increasing the price of your "commuter" when your choice hits your pocketbook. And one more thing, your ad hominem is duly noted, looks as if I struck a nerve. Oh well. Truth hurts doesn't it you Mr. DIETY aka Metrosexual Redneck office worker.

DIETY: one more thing, so what if your truck does 12 sec in the 1/4, that's great buddy. I have a motor cycle that does it in ~ 11.5 1/4. Doesn't matter what your driving at the track, matters how fast you get there...and I paid 2400 bucks for my 1/4 time, what did you pay for yours Mr Metrosexual?

I drive a truck (2001 F150 supercrew 4x4 5.4L), I am just not going to CRY about the price of the trucks on the market and the price of fuel, I could care less because I drive it when I need to, I usually take my wife's car (2009 Hyundai Sonata, far from a Prius like you might later accuse me of driving). Doesn't make me a greenie or whatever you concluded from your strawman arguments.

And yes, we NEED viable public transportation, whether you agree if it makes PROFITS or not, it just needs to break even at least. And I had no Idea that CANADA is a part of the USA, new info for me, thanks. I always thought buying oil from the country of CANADA would be buying from a foriegner........silly me.

The comments to this entry are closed.