America runs on diesel. From freight haulers and farm equipment to fire trucks and snowplows, diesel engines are the torque behind our economy.

Yet the same engines that built the nation’s backbone are now in Washington’s crosshairs — strangled by layers of federal regulation that threaten the people who keep America moving.

Fire departments, ambulance services, and municipal snowplows all run on diesel. If their vehicles can’t move, lives are at risk.

The Environmental Protection Agency insists it’s cleaning the air. But for those who live and work beyond the Beltway, these mandates aren’t saving the planet — they’re shutting down livelihoods.

Cost of clean

Since 2010, every diesel engine sold in the U.S. has come fitted with diesel particulate filters and selective catalytic reduction systems — components meant to capture soot and neutralize nitrogen oxides. In theory, they’re good for the environment. In practice, they’re crippling the very trucks that keep shelves stocked and first responders rolling.

DPFs clog, SCR units freeze, and when that happens, engines “derate” into limp mode — losing power until the system is fixed. A single failure can leave a truck stranded for days and cost upwards of $5,000 to repair. For independent owner-operators, who haul 70% of the nation’s freight, that can mean the difference between survival and bankruptcy.

Even worse, under the Clean Air Act, simply repairing or modifying those failing systems can make a mechanic a federal felon.

Tamper tantrum

Meet Troy Lake, a 65-year-old diesel expert from Cheyenne, Wyoming. For decades, Lake kept his community’s fleets running — farm trucks, snowplows, ambulances, and school buses. But when emissions systems began failing in subzero temperatures, Lake found himself forced to choose between obeying Washington’s regulations or keeping critical vehicles on the road.

His fix? Remove the faulty components and reprogram the engine to restore performance — a commonsense solution that kept essential services moving. But the EPA saw it differently. Under federal law, “tampering” with emissions controls carries up to five years in prison and $250,000 in fines per vehicle.

In June 2024, Lake pleaded guilty to one count of emissions tampering. By December, a federal judge sentenced him to a year in prison. His shop was fined $52,500 and shut down. Ironically, during his sentence, Lake worked on the prison’s own diesel equipment — the same skills that, outside those walls, had made him a criminal.

Now home but barred from his trade, Lake carries a felony record that cost him his business, his rights, and his reputation — all for keeping his community’s engines running.

Endless repair cycles

No one disputes that diesel exhaust can harm air quality. The EPA’s emission rules dramatically cut pollution over the past decade. But these results have come at an unsustainable cost to the people who depend on diesel most.

According to the American Trucking Associations, emissions-related repairs account for roughly 13% of total maintenance costs for Class 8 trucks. Each incident costs an average of $1,500 and countless hours of downtime. Multiply that across millions of trucks, and the burden on small businesses and rural economies is staggering.

Farmers, truckers, and local governments can’t afford the endless repair cycles. For them, Washington’s mandates translate to fewer working trucks, higher consumer costs, and dangerous response delays in emergencies.

Senator Lummis fights back

Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis (R) sees what’s happening. She’s watched the federal government criminalize working Americans while ignoring the real-world consequences of its rules. In October 2025, she introduced the Diesel Truck Liberation Act — legislation designed to restore sanity and balance.

The bill would:

Remove mandatory federal requirements for DPFs, SCRs, and onboard diagnostics;
Limit the EPA’s enforcement powers over diesel tuning and emissions deletes;
Protect mechanics and operators from prosecution for performing practical repairs; and
Provide retroactive relief — vacating sentences, clearing records, and refunding fines for past convictions.

A call for flexibility

Environmental advocates warn that such legislation could reverse decades of progress under the Clean Air Act.

That’s a legitimate concern. Clean air matters. But it’s also true that today’s engine tuning and filtration technologies are far more advanced than those available when these mandates were written. Recent research shows that advanced, model-based engine controls and “virtual sensors” can significantly cut nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions and help engines stay within strict tailpipe limits while reducing dependence on extra physical sensors and minimizing urea and fuel penalties.

Even current EPA leadership has acknowledged the need for flexibility and modernization. The question isn’t whether we should protect the environment — it’s whether rigid, outdated enforcement is the best way to do it.

And the impact doesn’t stop at the loading dock. Fire departments, ambulance services, and municipal snowplows all run on diesel. If their vehicles can’t move, lives are at risk. A snowstorm doesn’t care about EPA compliance, and neither does a heart attack.

Who makes the rules?

Opponents of the Diesel Truck Liberation Act argue that removing emissions hardware would increase pollution, disproportionately harming urban and low-income communities. Supporters counter that Washington’s policies have already created economic inequality by crushing rural economies and small operators.

The divide isn’t really about clean air — it’s about who gets to make the rules. Should unelected bureaucrats in D.C. dictate how a farmer in Wyoming runs his truck? Or should local communities have the flexibility to balance environmental goals with economic reality?

Image via @MusicScarf/X (screenshot)/Photographer: Emily Elconin/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Common sense prevails

The Diesel Truck Liberation Act doesn’t aim to destroy the Clean Air Act. It aims to reform it. It recognizes that environmental protection must work hand in hand with reliability, safety, and economic survival.

For people like Troy Lake, it’s about justice — not just for one man, but for thousands of mechanics and operators who’ve been punished for solving real problems in real America.

And there’s already a hopeful sign: President Trump recently issued a full pardon for Lake, acknowledging that enforcing broken regulations against hardworking Americans is not justice — it’s overreach.

The next step is whether Congress will follow through. The bill currently sits in the Senate Environment Committee, with hearings expected later this year. If it passes, it could set a precedent for rethinking how environmental policy is enforced — and how to protect the people who keep America running.

America’s diesel fleet isn’t the enemy. It’s the engine that powers our nation — from coast to coast, farm to factory, and every highway in between. Reasonable environmental goals are achievable, but not through criminalizing those who fix the equipment that keeps this country alive.

The question facing lawmakers is simple: Will they choose common sense — or continue punishing the very people who make modern life possible?

Elon Musk to reveal flying car next year

Elon Musk says the next Tesla Roadster might fly. Not figuratively — literally.

Imagine an all-electric supercar that hits 60 mph in under two seconds, then lifts off the pavement like something out of "The Jetsons." It sounds impossible, even absurd. But during a recent appearance on "The Joe Rogan Experience," Musk hinted that the long-delayed Tesla Roadster is about to do the unthinkable: merge supercar speed with vertical takeoff.

If the April 2026 demo delivers even a glimpse of flight, it will cement Tesla’s image as the company that still dares to dream big.

As someone who has test-driven nearly every kind of machine on four (and sometimes fewer) wheels, I’ve seen hype before. But this time, it’s not just marketing spin. Tesla is preparing a prototype demo that could change how we think about personal transportation — or prove that even Elon Musk can aim too high.

Rogan reveal

On Halloween, Musk told Joe Rogan that Tesla is “getting close to demonstrating the prototype,” adding with his usual flair: “One thing I can guarantee is that this product demo will be unforgettable.”

Rogan, always the skeptic, pushed for details. Wings? Hovering? Musk smirked: “I can’t do the unveil before the unveil. But I think it has a shot at being the most memorable product unveil ever.”

He even invoked his friend and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, who once said, "We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters."

Musk’s response: “I think if Peter wants a flying car, he should be able to buy one.”

That’s classic Elon — part visionary, part showman. But underneath the bravado lies serious engineering. Musk hinted at SpaceX technology powering the car.

The demonstration, now scheduled for April 1, 2026 (yes, April Fools’ Day), is meant to prove the impossible. Production could start by 2027 or 2028, but given Tesla’s history of optimistic timelines, it may be longer before any of us see a flying Roadster on the road — or in the air.

Good timing

Tesla’s timing isn’t accidental. The company’s Q3 2025 profits fell short due to tariffs, R&D spending, and the loss of federal EV tax credits. With electric vehicle demand cooling, Musk knows how to recapture attention: promise something audacious.

Remember the Cybertruck’s “unbreakable” windows? The demo didn’t go as planned — but it worked as a publicity move. A flying Tesla Roadster could do the same, turning investor eyes (and wallets) back toward Tesla’s most thrilling frontier.

Hovering hype

So can a Tesla actually fly? It may use cold-gas thrusters — essentially small rocket nozzles that expel compressed air for brief, powerful thrusts. The result could be hovering, extreme acceleration, or even short hops over obstacles.

There’s also talk of “fan car” technology, inspired by 1970s race cars that used vacuum fans to suck the car to the track for impossible cornering speeds. Combine that with Tesla’s AI-driven Full Self-Driving systems and new battery packs designed for over 600 miles of range, and the idea starts to sound just plausible enough.

The challenge? Energy density. Vertical flight consumes enormous power, and even Tesla’s advanced 4680 cells may struggle to deliver it without sacrificing range. And if the Roadster truly hovers, it will need reinforced suspension, stability controls, and noise-dampening tech to keep your driveway from turning into a launchpad.

Sky's the limit

Musk isn’t the first to chase this dream. The “flying car” has tempted inventors since the 1910s — and disappointed them nearly as long.

In the optimistic 1950s, Ford’s Advanced Design Studio built the Volante Tri-Athodyne, a ducted-fan prototype that looked ready for takeoff but never left the ground. The Moulton Taylor Aerocar actually flew, cruising at 120 mph and folding its wings for the highway — but only five were ever built.

Even the military tried. The U.S. and Canadian armies funded the Avrocar, a flying saucer-style VTOL craft that could hover but not climb more than six feet. Every generation since has produced new attempts — from the AVE Mizar (a flying Ford Pinto that ended in tragedy) to today’s eVTOL startups like Joby and Alef Aeronautics, the latter already FAA-certified for testing.

The dream keeps coming back because it represents freedom — freedom from traffic, limits, and gravity itself.

Got a permit for that?

Here’s where reality checks in. The Federal Aviation Administration now classifies electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft under a new category requiring both airplane and helicopter training. You would need a pilot’s license, medical exams, and specialized instruction to legally take off.

Insurance? Astronomical. Airspace? Restricted. Maintenance? Complex. In short: This won’t replace your daily driver any time soon. Even if the Roadster hovers, the FAA isn’t handing out flight permits for your morning commute.

Image provided to Blaze News by Jetson

Free parachute with purchase

Flying cars sound thrilling until you consider what happens when one malfunctions. A blown tire is one thing; a blown thruster at 200 feet is another. Tesla’s autonomy might help mitigate pilot error, but weather, visibility, and battery reliability all pose major challenges.

NASA and the FAA are developing new air traffic systems to handle “urban air mobility,” but even best-case scenarios involve strict flight corridors, automated control, and years of testing.

In short: We’re closer than ever to a flying car — but not that close.

Sticking the landing

So will the Tesla Roadster really fly? Probably — at least for a few seconds. Will it transform personal transportation? Not yet.

But here’s the thing: Musk doesn’t have to deliver a mass-market flying car. He just has to prove that it’s possible. And that may be enough to reignite public imagination and investor faith at a time when both are fading for the EV industry.

If the April 2026 demo delivers even a glimpse of flight, it will cement Tesla’s image as the company that still dares to dream big. If it flops, it will join the long list of “flying car” fantasies that fell back to Earth.

Either way, we’ll be watching — because when Elon Musk says he’s going to make a car fly, the world can’t help but look up.

Trading in your car? Here's how to get the biggest payout

When you find the right new car after a long search, it can be tempting to close as soon as possible. But before you sign, there’s one question that can save — or cost — you thousands.

What should you do with your current car?

Should you trade it in at the dealership or sell it privately? It’s more than a convenience question — it’s a strategy. And with used-car prices still unsettled, the right choice can make a real financial difference.

Let’s break down what actually matters and what the dealership won’t always volunteer.

Financial fork

Most buyers can’t keep their old car when upgrading. They use it as part of the down payment. But there are two very different paths:

Trade it in.
Sell it privately for typically more money.

Reality check: Dealerships rarely offer full market value. They need to buy low and sell high — it’s business. Knowing that puts you in control.

If your car is worth $15,000 privately, a dealer may offer $12,000. That’s $3,000 lost — money you could use to lower your loan or upgrade trims.

Why trade-ins win

Sometimes a trade-in is the smarter move — especially in states offering a sales tax credit.

Example: Buy a $40,000 car and trade in a $10,000 vehicle. You’re taxed only on $30,000, which can save you hundreds.

If the tax break closes the gap between your private-sale price and the trade-in offer, taking the trade may be the better move. Plus, there’s no hassle: no listings, no test drives, no strangers.

The timing sweet spot

Timing matters. The best moment to sell or trade is before your factory warranty expires.

3 years / 36,000 miles for basic.
5 years / 60,000 miles for powertrain.

Cars still under warranty are easier to resell and command higher prices. If your car is paid off, clean, and under those mileage limits, you’re in the prime window.

When you owe money

You can trade in a car with an outstanding loan — but be careful. If your car’s value is less than the payoff, that’s negative equity.

Your options: pay the difference Or roll it into your new loan (not ideal).

This is how people end up upside-down for years. Avoid it by calling your lender for your payoff amount and checking your car’s true value on KBB or Edmunds.

If you have positive equity, that difference becomes your down payment.

CBS/Getty Images

Watching the market

Used-car prices have swung wildly since the pandemic. The market is still strong for vehicles that are under five years old; well below 14,500 miles/year; and properly maintained.

If that describes your car, a private sale may be worth it. If not — high miles, cosmetic issues, or a soft local market — a trade-in may be the smarter, calmer choice.

Mileage and condition

Both private buyers and dealers care about the same things: mileage and condition. Before selling or trading, get the car detailed; fix small cosmetic flaws; replace worn tires or weak batteries; and gather maintenance records.

A clean, documented car always sells faster and for more.

The private sale payoff

Selling privately usually brings the highest price. But it has strings attached: writing the listing, taking photos, answering questions, meeting buyers, and handling title and payment. If that sounds like too much, a trade-in may be worth the lower price. But if you have a desirable car and the patience, a private sale can easily beat any dealer offer.

Final decision points

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. The right move depends on your equity, your time, your state's tax laws, your loan payoff, and your tolerance for hassle.

What matters is going in informed.

Know your numbers. Know your choices. Don’t let a dealer rush you. Done right, you can upgrade smoothly and walk away financially ahead.

Bottom line: Do your homework, understand the trade-offs, and choose the path that keeps the most money in your pocket.

Locked out: How Big Auto could destroy the used-car market

When it comes to replacing your daily driver, “used” is often the smartest buy. A low-mileage model from a few years back can save you real money while offering nearly all the same features. And as long as you do your homework, a well-maintained used car is every bit as serviceable as something brand new.

But that might not be true for much longer.

In states without strong right-to-repair protections, shops are already reporting cases where newer vehicles simply can’t be serviced without dealership intervention.

Automakers are steadily locking down the data that modern cars generate. If they succeed, independent repair shops, do-it-yourself mechanics — and your wallet — will feel the squeeze. The stakes are enormous: 273,000 repair shops, 900,000 technicians, and 293 million vehicles could be affected.

Stick with me. By the end of this, you’ll know exactly why the national right-to-repair movement is pushing the REPAIR Act — and why it’s worth calling your legislator today.

Gatekeeping data

For decades, car repair was straightforward. The OBD-II port — standardized in 1996 — gave shops and owners direct access to diagnostic data. That openness fueled competition, kept repairs affordable, and protected your right to choose who services your car.

Today’s vehicles are computers on wheels, containing hundreds of microprocessors and dozens of electronic control units. And instead of sending data through that familiar port, cars now stream diagnostics wirelessly through telematics systems. In 2021, half of all vehicles already had this capability. By 2030, McKinsey projects 95% of new cars will be fully connected.

Here’s the problem: That wireless data goes straight to the manufacturer. They become the gatekeeper — deciding who gets access, at what time, and for what price.

Independent shops get shut out or forced to pay steep fees for limited information. Consumers get funneled back to dealerships. And while telematics can offer real benefits — remote diagnostics, predictive maintenance — those perks mostly stay inside the dealership network when automakers control the data.

Drivers pay the price

When manufacturers monopolize data, drivers pay the price.

Higher repair costs: Independent shops must buy expensive, manufacturer-approved tools or subscriptions — or they can’t complete repairs at all.
Fewer options: Your trusted neighborhood shop may be unable to work on newer models, leaving you with dealership-only service.
Privacy erosion: Every drive generates information on your habits, location, and behavior. Automakers routinely share or sell that data to insurers, advertisers, and third parties — often without clear consent.

In states without strong right-to-repair protections, shops are already reporting cases where newer vehicles simply can’t be serviced without dealership intervention.

The aftermarket fallout

Independent repair is a massive economic engine. Cut off their access to data, and the ripple effects are huge:

Aftermarket parts makers struggle to design compatible components.
Innovation slows.
Dealers gain monopolies on everything from diagnostics to repairs.
Wait times increase while prices rise.

Voters have noticed. Massachusetts passed a telematics right-to-repair initiative in 2020 with 75% approval. Maine followed in 2023 with 84%. Those wins matter — but a patchwork of state laws won’t protect drivers nationwide.

Enter the REPAIR Act

Industry groups — including the Auto Care Association, MEMA Aftermarket Suppliers, and the CAR Coalition — are backing the REPAIR Act (H.R. 906). It’s not radical. It simply updates consumer rights for the connected-car era.

Four core principles drive the bill:

No artificial barriers to repair or maintenance.
Owners and their chosen shops get direct access to vehicle-generated data.
No manufacturer can mandate proprietary tools or dealer-only equipment.
A stakeholder advisory committee keeps the rules current as technology evolves.

The act restores choice. You can repair your own vehicle — or choose any shop you trust. It bans anticompetitive behavior like withholding service information or requiring dealer-exclusive parts. And crucially, wireless data must be shared through secure, standardized, owner-approved channels.

NHTSA and the FTC would set cybersecurity rules. Consumers would receive clear data-sharing notifications. And if manufacturers abuse the system, the FTC can act fast.

400tmax via iStock/Getty Images

Skimp my ride

Without the REPAIR Act, the used-car market collapses into uncertainty. Vehicles that require dealer-only repairs will lose value quickly. Planned obsolescence accelerates. And as cars become fully connected, the familiar OBD-II era winds down.

A car you buy in 2025 could be effectively “dealer-locked” by 2030.

Manufacturers argue they need total control for cybersecurity. But secure, standardized data access — the model used globally — proves you can protect vehicle integrity without destroying competition.

The aftermarket already has a workable framework: encrypted data, authenticated access, owner permissions, and interoperable platforms. It's practical, safe, and ready today.

The price of inaction

Without federal action:

Repair costs rise 20%-50%.
Independent shops close.
Innovation dries up.
Consumer privacy evaporates.
The used-car market contracts.

The REPAIR Act reverses all of that. It creates a fair system where manufacturers build the cars — but the aftermarket keeps them running.

Don’t wait. Act.

This affects every driver. Contact your representative and urge support for the REPAIR Act.
It protects choice, savings, and your right to repair in a digital automotive world.

Your car, your data, your repairs. That’s what’s on the line.

Avoid these 9 car-rental rip-offs

Renting a car should be simple: You reserve a vehicle, drive it, and return it at the end of your trip.

But for millions of travelers each year, what seems like a straightforward process can quickly become a source of frustration and unexpected costs.

In 2024, US car-rental companies collected more than $2 billion in optional insurance and add-on fees.

Hidden fees, deceptive insurance upsells, false damage claims, and overpriced extras have become all too common, turning a simple rental into a costly experience. Understanding how rental companies operate and knowing what to watch for can save you time, money, and stress.

1. Hidden fees

One of the most pervasive problems in car rentals is the hidden fee. Travelers are often lured in with low advertised rates, only to be shocked when extra charges appear on their final bill.

These can include cleaning fees, administrative charges, or taxes that were not clearly disclosed. A rate that appears to be $25 a day can quickly balloon when additional costs are tacked on. The key to avoiding these surprises is vigilance: reading the contract carefully, asking for a full breakdown of potential charges, and choosing reputable rental companies that provide transparency from the start.

2. Fuel charges

Fuel charges are another frequent source of frustration. Many agencies offer prepaid fuel options, promising convenience at a flat rate. In reality, these plans often overcharge travelers. A prepaid tank might cost $70, while filling up locally could cost half that. The best strategy is to select a policy requiring you to return the car full and refuel it yourself, giving you control over price and avoiding overpayment.

3. Insurance upselling

Insurance upselling is a classic tactic at rental counters. Agents may encourage you to purchase extra coverage, claiming your personal insurance or credit card benefits are insufficient. Many credit cards already include rental car insurance, and personal auto policies often extend coverage to rentals. Knowing what protections you already have, and bringing proof, allows you to confidently decline unnecessary insurance and avoid paying for coverage you don’t need.

Mark Sullivan/Getty Images

4. Damage claims

Damage claims can create even bigger headaches. Renters are frequently billed for scratches, dents, or other damage that existed before their rental. Without proper documentation, disputing these charges can be difficult. To protect yourself, inspect the car thoroughly before and after driving, take comprehensive photos or videos, and ensure any pre-existing damage is recorded by the rental agent. A few minutes of documentation can prevent thousands of dollars in unjust repair charges.

5. 'Free' upgrades

Even seemingly generous “free” upgrades can carry hidden costs. A larger or fancier car may require premium gasoline, have lower fuel efficiency, or carry higher insurance rates. What seems like a perk can quickly become an unexpected expense. Always confirm the details of any upgrade before accepting it and assess whether it truly makes sense for your trip.

6. Early return penalties

Timing is another area where fees can accumulate. Early returns may trigger additional charges, as some companies consider schedule changes disruptive to their fleet planning. Returning a vehicle late, even by an hour, can also result in steep penalties, sometimes amounting to a full extra day’s rental. Understanding the agency’s policies, communicating any changes in advance, and planning your return carefully are essential to avoid unnecessary fees.

7. Unauthorized driver penalties

Unauthorized drivers are another hidden cost. If someone not listed on the rental agreement drives the vehicle, you may face significant penalties. This can be particularly costly during family trips when multiple people share driving duties. The solution is straightforward: Ensure every driver is added to the contract up front. Some companies even offer one free additional driver, which can reduce the financial burden and prevent insurance complications.

8. Location surcharges

Location surcharges are a more subtle form of deception. Renting at airports or central city locations is convenient, but convenience comes at a premium. Airport locations can be 20% to 30% more expensive than nearby off-site branches. Taking the time to compare rates at alternative locations and factoring in transportation costs can yield substantial savings.

9. Add-on accessories and services

Additional accessories and services: GPS devices, car seats, and toll passes are often priced exorbitantly. Renting a car seat can cost $15 to $20 per day, adding up to over $100 for a week-long trip. Smartphones equipped with navigation apps can replace GPS units at no extra cost, and parents can often check car seats on flights for free, avoiding rental fees altogether.

Protect yourself

The reality is that the rental industry profits heavily from these practices. In 2024, U.S. car-rental companies collected more than $2 billion in optional insurance and add-on fees, a significant portion of which came from products renters didn’t truly need. Legal challenges have occasionally forced companies to settle claims over hidden fees and false damage charges, but systemic issues remain.

Navigating this environment requires preparation and awareness. Researching rental companies in advance, documenting the condition of the vehicle, confirming coverage with your insurance and credit card, and reading the fine print of agreements are essential steps. Avoiding high-pressure sales tactics, understanding the cost implications of upgrades, and planning for return times can save significant money and prevent unpleasant surprises.

While consumer advocacy and regulation are slowly increasing transparency, renters remain the first line of defense against these tactics. Until industry-wide standards are strictly enforced, vigilance is essential. Understanding how companies maximize profits and where they might bend the rules puts you back in control of your rental experience.

Renting a car doesn’t have to be stressful. With careful planning, attention to detail, and knowledge of potential pitfalls, travelers can avoid unnecessary costs and enjoy a smoother, more predictable journey. In the world of car rentals, the most important tool is not a GPS or a car seat, it’s knowledge.

Farewell to fake fuel efficiency stats, hello to tough future for EVs

Fake fuel economy has got to go.

That's the message of a recent decision by the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Sent to the scrap heap: a Biden-era Department of Energy rule that critics say wildly inflated the fuel economy ratings of EVs — giving them an unfair regulatory advantage over gasoline and hybrid vehicles.

The court's ruling was clear and direct: Federal agencies cannot manipulate timelines or definitions to advance a policy agenda without proper authorization from Congress.

This is a major correction to how the U.S. government measures vehicle efficiency, with consequences for automakers, consumers, and the future of the EV market.

Efficiency inflation

The case was brought by 13 Republican attorneys general, who argued that the DOE's formula for calculating EV efficiency was misleading and legally indefensible. The court agreed, ruling that the Biden administration overstepped its authority by continuing to use an outdated, artificial formula that inflated electric vehicle performance under federal fuel economy standards.

At stake is the credibility of how America measures vehicle efficiency — a key driver in regulatory decisions that shape everything from automaker product lines to what cars consumers can buy.

For years, the DOE's so-called petroleum equivalency factor has been used to translate electric power into miles-per-gallon equivalents. But the formula wasn't based on realistic energy comparisons. Instead, it massively overstated how far an EV could travel on the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline — often rating electric cars above 100 MPGE, regardless of actual energy costs or grid efficiency.

Credits as currency

Rather than immediately fixing this issue, the Biden administration's DOE planned a slow phase-out of the inflated metric between model years 2027 and 2030. That delay allowed automakers to continue claiming exaggerated efficiency numbers — and collecting fuel economy credits that made it easier to comply with the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.

Why does that matter? Because those credits act as a form of regulatory currency. A company that racks up credits through high-efficiency vehicles can use them to offset the sale of less efficient models or even sell them to other automakers.

In other words, the inflated EV math didn't just look better on paper — it saved automakers millions of dollars in potential penalties while giving policymakers a talking point about "historic progress" in fuel efficiency that wasn't based on real-world performance.

A direct rebuke

In its 3-0 decision, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the DOE had gone beyond its legal bounds. Agencies can't rewrite laws through policy tweaks, the judges said, even under the guise of "phasing out" old rules. The DOE was required by statute to eliminate the flawed formula entirely — not stretch it over several more years of inflated numbers.

The court's ruling was clear and direct: Federal agencies cannot manipulate timelines or definitions to advance a policy agenda without proper authorization from Congress.

That's a significant rebuke not just to the DOE, but to a broader pattern of regulatory overreach that has characterized much of Washington's EV push.

For the states that brought the lawsuit, the decision represents a major win for transparency, accountability, and consumer protection.

Pivoting on EVs

The implications for automakers are enormous. For years, inflated EV efficiency numbers helped carmakers meet federal fuel economy targets and avoid costly fines. Without that regulatory buffer, the industry will need to adapt quickly.

Automakers may now lose the valuable fuel economy credits they've relied on to remain compliant with CAFE standards, forcing them to find new ways to meet efficiency goals. That shift will require genuine engineering improvements — advances in aerodynamics, weight reduction, and hybrid technology — rather than relying on inflated paper-based advantages.

This change could also prompt a broader reassessment of electric vehicle strategy. If the regulatory math no longer tilts in favor of EVs, many manufacturers may slow their rollout plans or diversify their portfolios to include more hybrids and high-efficiency gasoline models.

The timing is significant: EV demand has cooled, dealer inventories are building up, and consumer interest has leveled off. Automakers such as Ford, General Motors, and Volkswagen have already scaled back or delayed certain EV programs in response to slower-than-expected sales and ongoing infrastructure limitations.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Consumer transparency

For everyday drivers, this ruling doesn't ban EVs — but it brings more honesty to the system.

Consumers deserve accurate information about vehicle efficiency, cost of ownership, and environmental impact. Inflated fuel economy ratings distort that picture, making EVs appear more efficient than they are when accounting for charging losses, battery manufacturing, and electric grid emissions.

Now, car buyers can make more informed choices — whether that's a hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or traditional gasoline vehicle.

In the long term, this ruling could encourage a broader mix of technology rather than a forced, one-size-fits-all transition to battery electrics.

The fight to come

This case isn't just about EVs. It's about how much power federal agencies should have to rewrite laws without Congressional oversight.

For decades, Washington has leaned on regulatory agencies to shape environmental and energy policy — often through complex formulas that most Americans never see. But as the Eighth Circuit emphasized, the ends don't justify the means.

Even if the goal is cleaner transportation, the process has to respect legal boundaries. When agencies overreach, courts must intervene to restore balance.

This decision reinforces an important principle: Policy must be grounded in law, not ideology. And in a country that values free markets and consumer choice, regulations should enhance transparency, not distort it.

The ruling leaves several key questions unanswered, but it is likely just the beginning of a much larger policy fight. Congress could attempt to step in by rewriting the laws that govern fuel economy standards, giving the DOE clearer authority to define how electric vehicle efficiency is calculated. However, such legislative efforts would almost certainly face significant political gridlock in an already divided Congress.

Much-needed realism

Automakers, meanwhile, are expected to take a hard look at how they allocate their research and development budgets and how they plan future vehicle lineups.

Companies heavily invested in electric vehicles have shifted strategies, focusing more on hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and improved gasoline technologies — especially in markets where EV sales have already shown signs of slowing or flattening.

Finally, the court's reasoning may open the door to further challenges that could include renewed scrutiny of EPA emissions standards and federal tax credits, both of which critics argue have tilted the market in favor of electric vehicles rather than allowing consumer demand and market forces to guide the transition naturally.

The Eighth Circuit's decision is a defining moment for the future of American automotive policy. It doesn't kill the EV market — but it forces it to stand on its own merits.

Electric vehicles have their place in the market, but consumers deserve truthful efficiency data and honest cost comparisons. Inflated numbers and creative accounting don't serve innovation — they undermine it.

This ruling restores some much-needed realism to the national conversation about the future of mobility. It's a win for transparency, for accountability, and most importantly, for consumers who want to make decisions based on facts rather than politics.

Global chip dispute threatens auto production again!

The auto industry just can’t seem to get a break.

Just a few years out from COVID-era supply chain issues, a new computer chip shortage looms — and it's threatening manufacturers on both sides of the Atlantic.

Germany’s auto industry lobbying group VDA warns that carmakers are days away from having to shut down production — with the crisis possibly spreading beyond Europe to the U.S. within weeks.

Automakers cannot simply switch suppliers overnight; qualifying new chips and redesigning vehicle modules take months.

Here’s the issue: A Dutch chip maker called Nexperia got bought out by a Chinese company called Wingtech. The Trump administration then warned the Dutch that the Chinese were planning to move technology and production out of the Netherlands to China, so the Dutch government seized control of the company in September. China retaliated by prohibiting exports of Nexperia components that are made in China.

Voila: a brand new chip shortage.

Going Dutch

Nexperia may not produce the most advanced semiconductors, but it's an essential, high-volume provider of automotive chips that control electronic systems in modern vehicles. Without them, automakers cannot assemble cars efficiently.

On September 30, the Dutch government invoked emergency powers to take control of Nexperia, citing concerns about technology transfer to the company’s Chinese parent, Wingtech. This action followed months of U.S. pressure, including adding Wingtech to the U.S. Entity List (thus requiring a special license for an American company wanting to trade with it) and extending export control restrictions to subsidiaries owned at least 50% by China.

Dutch officials described the intervention as a defensive step to protect European technological assets and maintain supply-chain security. While day-to-day operations have been left to the Chinese owners, strategic decisions now fall under government oversight.

China calls

On October 4, China’s Ministry of Commerce issued export controls prohibiting Nexperia China and its subcontractors from exporting certain finished components and sub-assemblies. Automakers immediately expressed concern.

The European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association warned that production could be significantly disrupted. In the U.S., the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing nearly all major automakers including General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai, urged a quick resolution.

“If the shipment of automotive chips doesn’t resume — quickly — it’s going to disrupt auto production in the U.S. and many other countries and have a spillover effect in other industries,” said CEO John Bozzella.

Supply-chain sequel

Modern vehicles rely heavily on electronics. Even models without luxury infotainment systems use Nexperia chips for electronic control units, powertrain management, safety systems, and more.

The disruption illustrates the fragility of the global supply chain. Automakers cannot simply switch suppliers overnight; qualifying new chips and redesigning vehicle modules take months. Even a small interruption can cascade, causing production delays, increased costs, or halted assembly lines.

Volkswagen and BMW reported that European production has not yet been impacted but said they were actively evaluating supply risks. In the U.S., exposure grows daily as plants rely on components sourced through European operations or shared supplier networks. Japan and other countries are already preparing for the negative impact.

Chips are down

The disruption could lead to short-term production slowdowns, with car plants in Europe, Japan, Korea, and potentially the U.S. reducing shifts, delaying vehicle launches, or postponing deliveries.

The need to find alternative suppliers, expedite shipping, or re-engineer components will increase costs, potentially raising vehicle prices for consumers.

Automakers are also likely to accelerate supply-chain restructuring, diversifying suppliers, resourcing production domestically, or redesigning vehicles to rely less on single-source components. If chip availability remains constrained, vehicles may arrive with fewer options or higher prices, impacting both buyers and dealers. This will not help a hurting industry.

Slow learners?

The Nexperia dispute highlights a growing reality: Automakers are navigating a geopolitical minefield. Governments increasingly treat technology and component supply as strategic assets, and decisions made halfway across the world can ripple through production lines almost instantly. It seems like the last chip shortage didn’t teach too many lessons.

Automakers must now consider geopolitical risk in procurement decisions, diversify suppliers, and maintain contingency stock. For consumers, vehicle availability, pricing, and features can be affected by forces far beyond local dealerships. Just like the last chip shortage, dealers raised prices to offset lack of supply and high demand.

In a world where electronics are as essential to cars as engines, supply-chain resilience is no longer optional — it’s critical. The Nexperia dispute is a warning sign, and for the auto industry, the stakes could not be higher.

Trump's SHOCKING 25% truck tariff: A matter of national security?

President Donald Trump’s dropping another tariff on the auto industry.

Starting November 1, the U.S. will impose a 25% tariff on all imported medium- and heavy-duty trucks, a dramatic escalation in the administration’s ongoing effort to strengthen domestic manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign-built vehicles.

The short-term effects could include delays in vehicle availability, higher fleet costs, and potential retaliation from trading partners.

This announcement sent shockwaves through global trade circles and Wall Street. According to Trump, the decision is rooted in national security and economic strength, not politics. But as with any sweeping trade action, there’s more under the hood than meets the eye.

Priced to move

While celebrating the immediate bump in automaker stock prices following the tariff announcement, Trump’s message was direct. “Mary Barra of General Motors and Bill Ford of Ford Motor Company just called to thank me. ... Without tariffs, it would be a hard, long slog for truck and car manufacturers in the United States.”

The president framed the move as a matter of economic sovereignty, arguing that domestic production capacity in critical industries, like heavy vehicles used in logistics, defense, and infrastructure, is essential to national security.

That message resonates with many Americans frustrated by decades of outsourcing and the hollowing out of domestic manufacturing. But it’s also raising concerns among global partners and major U.S. companies with deep supply chain ties abroad.

Winners and losers

The new tariffs target a wide range of vehicles: delivery trucks, garbage trucks, utility vehicles, buses, semis, and vocational heavy trucks.

Manufacturers expected to benefit include Paccar, the parent company of Peterbilt and Kenworth, and Daimler Truck North America, which produces Freightliner vehicles in the U.S. These companies have much to gain from reduced import competition and potentially stronger domestic demand.

However, for companies like Stellantis, which manufactures Ram heavy-duty pickups and commercial vans in Mexico, the impact could be costly.

Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, trucks assembled in North America can move tariff-free if at least 64% of their content originates within the region. But many manufacturers rely on imported parts and materials, putting them at risk of higher costs and tighter margins.

Mexico, the largest exporter of medium- and heavy-duty trucks to the U.S., will be hit hardest. Imports from Mexico have tripled since 2019, climbing from about 110,000 to 340,000 units annually. Canada, Japan, Germany, and Finland also face new barriers under the 25% tariff.

Industry pushback

Not everyone is excited about the tariffs — especially considering that the import sources for these trucks (Mexico, Canada, and Japan) are long-standing American allies and trading partners.

Industry analysts warn of supply-chain disruptions, potential price increases, and reduced model availability for both commercial fleets and consumers. Tariffs could also pressure U.S. companies to adjust production strategies, increase domestic sourcing, or even pass higher costs on to customers.

Chicago Tribune/Getty Images

The politics of protectionism

This is not the first time a Trump administration has leaned on tariffs as an economic lever. During his previous term, tariffs on imported steel, aluminum, and Chinese goods aimed to bring manufacturing back to U.S. soil. Supporters argue those policies helped revitalize key industries and encourage job growth. Critics countered that they raised costs for American companies and consumers alike.

Still, there’s no denying that tariffs remain one of Trump’s most powerful economic tools and one of his most politically effective messages. By positioning tariffs as a way to protect American jobs, the policy appeals to workers and manufacturers across the Rust Belt, a region that will play a pivotal role in the upcoming election.

Short-term pain

For the U.S. trucking and logistics sectors, the short-term effects could include delays in vehicle availability, higher fleet costs, and potential retaliation from trading partners.

Truck leasing and rental companies that rely on imported chassis and components may see their operating costs rise. Meanwhile, domestic truck makers could ramp up production, potentially benefiting U.S. suppliers and job growth in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Texas.

The challenge will be whether domestic manufacturers can meet demand quickly enough without triggering inflationary pressures in the commercial transportation market.

Long-term gain?

Trump’s framing of the tariffs as a “national security matter” echoes earlier policies aimed at reducing foreign dependence in critical sectors, from semiconductors to electric vehicles. Advocates say this approach ensures that America can produce what it needs in times of crisis.

But opponents warn that labeling economic measures as “security” issues can backfire, alienating allies and inviting retaliation. European officials and trade negotiators in Canada and Japan are already signaling possible countermeasures if talks with Washington fail to yield exemptions.

Mind the gap

The real question now is how manufacturers will adapt. Companies may accelerate plans to localize assembly and parts production inside the U.S., while foreign brands could seek joint ventures or partnerships with American firms to skirt tariffs.

Consumers and fleets will likely see higher sticker prices for imported trucks and commercial vehicles as tariffs ripple through supply chains. That may also shift more buyers toward U.S.-built models, at least in the short term.

Ultimately, Trump’s move puts America’s industrial policy back in the driver’s seat. Whether it strengthens the economy or creates new trade turbulence will depend on how quickly domestic production can fill the gap left by imports.

President Trump’s 25% truck tariff is a high-stakes bet on American manufacturing dominance. It could fuel a resurgence in U.S. production or ignite new rounds of trade retaliation.

Either way, one thing is certain: The decision has already reshaped the conversation about what it means to build, and buy, American.

Pedal Commander: A plug-and-play solution to throttle lag

As a car enthusiast who's spent decades wrenching on everything from classic muscle cars to modern vehicles, I love gadgets that deliver real results without voiding warranties or requiring a trip to the shop.

That's why the Pedal Commander caught my eye — it's a plug-and-play throttle controller that promises sharper acceleration, better fuel efficiency, and customizable modes, all without touching your engine.

I clocked a solid 0-60 improvement of about 0.8 seconds using a simple app timer, though your mileage will vary by vehicle.

I installed one on my daily driver, a 2016 Porsche Cayenne Diesel, and tested it over 500 miles of city, highway, and spirited backroad driving. Spoiler: It lives up to the hype for most drivers, but it's not a magic bullet for everyone.

Installation: easier than an oil change

Right out of the box, the Pedal Commander feels premium — compact aluminum unit with a wired controller and a mobile app. Hooking it up took me under 10 minutes: Unplug your stock throttle connector under the dash, plug in the device, and mount the controller wherever it's handy (I stuck mine near the steering column on the carpet). No tools, no cutting wires, and crucially, no permanent mods to your car.

The included app (iOS/Android) pairs instantly via Bluetooth, letting you tweak settings on the fly. For tech-averse folks, the physical buttons on the controller handle 90% of adjustments or use the phone app — it's simple.

Performance punch: bye-bye throttle lag

The star of the show is how it eliminates that infuriating "dead pedal" delay you get in so many modern drive-by-wire cars. Hitting the gas in my Cayenne used to feel like mashing a soggy sponge; now, in Sport+ mode, it's like flipping a switch — immediate torque surge without drama.

Merging onto highways? Effortless. Overtaking slowpokes? Pure grin-factor. I clocked a solid 0-60 improvement of about 0.8 seconds using a simple app timer, though your mileage will vary by vehicle.

On the flip side, it's not adding actual horsepower — it's just optimizing what your ECU already delivers by remapping throttle sensitivity. It gives a one-to-one pedal response. If you're chasing dyno-proven gains, look elsewhere (like a tune). But for stock cars, this is a low-risk way to wake up your ride.

Lauren Fix

Fuel economy boost: ECO mode delivers (mostly)

Here's where it shines for efficiency chasers: Switch to ECO mode, and it smooths out aggressive throttle inputs, encouraging gentler acceleration that pays off at the pump. Over my test loop (mixed 60/40 city/highway), I saw MPG jump from 32 to 34 — that's a legit fuel savings, especially noticeable in stop-and-go traffic. The app's real-time data graphs helped me dial in habits, like easing off sooner for coasting.

That said, gains aren't universal. If you're a lead-foot who ignores the modes, don't expect miracles — especially if you live in Sport mode. Pedal Commander's no substitute for proper driving technique or maintenance.

Modes and customization: tailored to your drive

With eight modes (ECO, City, Sport, Sport+, and its plus variants) plus fine-tuned sensitivity sliders, it's incredibly versatile. I toggled between ECO for commutes and Sport+ for fun runs via the app's clean interface — think drag-and-drop sliders and mode presets.

The verdict — a must for pedal lag-haters

If throttle lag bugs you and you want snappier response plus bonus MPG without drilling holes or flashing your ECU, grab a Pedal Commander. It's transformed my Cayenne from appliance to enthusiast tool, proving you can get more pep and efficiency stock. Perfect for hybrids, crossovers, diesel-powered, or any drive-by-wire daily.

Just drive responsibly — this thing makes power feel addictive. Highly recommended for anyone tired of waiting for their car to wake up.

The company profiles and product recommendations that Align publishes are meant solely to inform and edify our subscribers. Unless explicitly labeled as such, they are neither paid promotions nor endorsements.

Gen Z just outsmarted car dealers — using AI

There’s a new dynamic shaking up the auto industry, and car dealerships aren’t thrilled about it. Members of Generation Z — the most digital generation yet — aren't walking into showrooms unprepared. Instead, they’re bringing a secret weapon: artificial intelligence.

"Yesterday, ChatGPT helped my daughter save over $3,000 on a car purchase," trumpets one post on Reddit, going on to lay out the exact prompt she used to secure her deal.

With a few taps, AI can highlight suspicious charges, flag high interest rates, and summarize legal terms that would take an average buyer hours to decipher.

This is far from an isolated anecdote — it’s the latest real-world shift in how people buy cars. Similar stories abound, including videos showing buyers walking sales reps through their own contracts.

New leverage

It's hard to blame the latest generation of first-time car buyers for using whatever leverage they can. Zoomers grew up during the 2008 financial crash, the pandemic, and the explosion of online scams. They’ve watched the economy fluctuate wildly, and they’ve seen how easily a “great deal” can turn into a financial trap. They’re cautious, analytical, and skeptical of traditional sales tactics — especially those that rely on confusion or pressure.

And let’s be honest — dealership contracts are notoriously dense. Between add-ons like extended warranties, gap insurance, and inflated “doc fees,” the cost of a new car can quietly balloon by thousands of dollars. But with a few taps, AI can highlight suspicious charges, flag high interest rates, and summarize legal terms that would take an average buyer hours to decipher.

Dealers can benefit too

It’s no wonder some salespeople are frustrated. They’re used to being the authority. But now, the balance of power is shifting toward the customer — especially younger ones who can instantly fact-check every claim.

Dealerships, however, are fighting back — adopting AI themselves to streamline inventory, analyze market data, and create transparent pricing that appeals to Gen Z’s preference for honesty and speed.

Those who resist change risk being left behind. If your customer knows more than your finance manager because the customer ran the numbers through an AI, that’s a wake-up call.

The smartest dealerships are adapting by embracing technology instead of fearing it. They’re using AI to enhance transparency — automating disclosures, simplifying pricing structures, and ensuring that every deal can stand up to digital scrutiny.

Trust in large institutions — from media to government to corporations — has eroded for years. The car-buying process, long viewed as opaque and stressful, is no exception. Gen Z’s approach reflects a cultural shift: Don’t rely on authority; verify with data.

AI provides a kind of digital ally — a second opinion that feels objective. It doesn’t care about commissions or quotas. It simply reads the fine print and reports back.

George Rose/Getty Images

More transparency?

Critics argue that depending on AI for financial decisions is risky. And they’re not wrong — AI isn’t infallible. It can misinterpret terms or overlook context. But for many buyers, even an imperfect tool feels safer than blind trust in a salesperson’s word.

This trend extends beyond cars. Gen Z uses AI for everything — evaluating rental agreements, comparing college loans, even cross-checking health care costs. To Zoomers, it’s not “cheating.” It’s being informed.

And while some mock the trend as overly cautious or robotic, it’s hard to argue with the results. When young buyers save thousands simply by questioning what’s in front of them, the lesson is clear: Transparency wins.

As AI continues to evolve, its role in consumer decision-making will only grow. Future dealership interactions may feature built-in AI advisers on both sides — buyers and sellers each leveraging data to find common ground faster.

It’s not far-fetched to imagine an industry where paperwork is pre-analyzed, financing terms are AI-generated, and negotiation becomes a transparent dialogue rather than a psychological battle.

For decades, dealerships relied on information asymmetry — the idea that they knew more than the buyer. That era is ending. The smartphone and now AI have leveled the playing field.