VW Group, BMW and Daimler Are Under Investigation For Collusion In Europe (cnet.com) 151
The European Commission has launched an antitrust investigation into the Volkswagen Group, BMW and Daimler, over allegations they colluded to keep certain emissions control devices from reaching the market in Europe, according to a statement the Commission released on Tuesday. CNET reports: The technologies the group allegedly sought to bury include a selective catalytic reduction system for diesel vehicles, which would help to reduce environmentally problematic oxides of nitrogen in passenger cars, and "Otto" particulate filters that trap particulate matter from gasoline combustion engines.
"The Commission is investigating whether BMW, Daimler and VW agreed not to compete against each other on the development and roll-out of important systems to reduce harmful emissions from petrol and diesel passenger cars," said Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, head of competition policy for the European Commission, in a statement. "These technologies aim at making passenger cars less damaging to the environment. If proven, this collusion may have denied consumers the opportunity to buy less polluting cars, despite the technology being available to the manufacturers."
"The Commission is investigating whether BMW, Daimler and VW agreed not to compete against each other on the development and roll-out of important systems to reduce harmful emissions from petrol and diesel passenger cars," said Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, head of competition policy for the European Commission, in a statement. "These technologies aim at making passenger cars less damaging to the environment. If proven, this collusion may have denied consumers the opportunity to buy less polluting cars, despite the technology being available to the manufacturers."
Bloody Europe (Score:5, Insightful)
It's shocking how Europe is always so biased against these American companies and never investigates any of it's own.
Oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent!
Re: (Score:1)
They came up with PAL just to be contrarian, after all.
Re: (Score:1)
> but they'll as you say be less reliable and all the replacement parts required and/or early scrapping will easily offset any minor gains in the exhaust emissions.
You have a source on this?
Never heard this argument before.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up how much energy it takes to manufacture a modern car. Most of it will have come from fossiil fuel power stations or diesel transporation, either shippingi, trains or trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up how much energy it takes to manufacture a modern car. Most of it will have come from fossiil fuel power stations or diesel transporation, either shippingi, trains or trucks.
Almost 100% of any car made in the last 20 years is recyclable. Most of the materials used in a new build are from recycled metals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If EPA was rational they would regulate car long term reliability - ensuring that the car could be used for at least 250,000 miles and 20 years without major rebuilds.
Re: (Score:3)
For example old and inexpensive Civic Hatch, VW Golf, Subaru Impreza, Toyota Celcia, and so on would not be seen in a negative light. Your choices broaden a great deal if you step up to luxury bracket, as almost any $100K car would still be seen as cool 20 years older
Re: You are judged on your vehicle though... (Score:2)
When I see a lowly salesperson driving a BMW, I assume they don't know the first thing about managing money, and that they are generally incompetent at life. People who spend 10% of their gross salary leasing a car probably aren't smart enough to be gainfully employed.
Re: (Score:2)
Or make a decent enough living to actually afford nice things?
Just because you don't, doesn't mean others can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Cash for Clunkers [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Look up how much energy it takes to manufacture a modern car. Most of it will have come from fossiil fuel
Less than one-third of the energy consumption of the typical automobile is spent in production.
Re: (Score:2)
You've never bought an American car made in the 60s or 70s. I'll leave the 80s models for futher review...
Back then you were surprised to find one running well after 100,000 miles. Not just the sheet metal, which, if you went out to the garage around 2am, laid down on the floor, and put your ear up next to the quarter panel, you could hear it rust. But those high-compression engines, lacking a little in advanced metallurgy and manufacturing, suffered from intake manifold gasket failures, carburetor problems
Re: (Score:2)
What really makes turbos last is doing oil changes, and if the designers took the oil feed off from the right location. If they get it from an main oil galley, it's crap. If they took it directly off from the filter, then it might actually last. On most vehicles it just comes out of one of the oil passages so you're getting sludge in your turbo oil. I just noticed this characteristic when I was fiddling with a 1999 Blue Bird Q-Bus with a Cummins ISC. The turbo oil feed line comes directly from the oil filte
Re: Blame the EU commission.. (Score:2)
Funny how I know literally dozens of people with cars from the 70s...
Re: Blame the EU commission.. (Score:2)
Also funny how there are tons of old American cars on the road from the 70s, but barely any German made ones...
Re: Blame the EU commission.. (Score:2)
Collectibles?
Re: Blame the EU commission.. (Score:2)
Then ask Saab owners. Turbos were not the problems, the DIC was a problem.
Really, you think I don't know Saab is defunct. Really. Did you know Subaru sold turbo engined cars in the 90s? Earlier, maybe?
Re:Blame the EU commission.. (Score:5, Insightful)
.Sure, it will end up with cars producing less CO2, but they'll as you say be less reliable and all the replacement parts required and/or early scrapping will easily offset any minor gains in the exhaust emissions.
Yet modern cars with all of this are far more reliable than they ever were back in the day of carburettors, doing mileage that cars of the 70s would never reach.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points. Nailed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Is anti-lock braking even needed in a car that light??
I would expect it is more important in a light car. Less weight means less grip, and it being easier to lock up the wheels during braking. Anti-lock brakes enable you to brake and turn at the same time without worrying about pumping the brakes. You want it.
Re: (Score:2)
ABS is even more valuable with a light car. Complex ECUs permit better emission controls, and that's your government at work, talk to them. It's hard to argue against cleane air. Useless entertainment features? Oh, I mostly don't like being stuck with the audio system they decided to settle for, but I suppose if they built Bluetooth and streaming into it I'm done, amps and speakers are still upgradable.
'They' won't let you build an 80s Toyota Hilux any more, you'll have to use modern emissions and that's th
Re: (Score:3)
We no longer need to make cars that go at ludicrous speeds. My cheap run-of-the-mill car will easily do 130mph if I ask it to.
That's unnecessary.
All the safety features on modern cars are there for a reason. Your bumpers disintegrate because they will save your life much better than any older car. Airbags are everywhere, even the roof supports. Because it saves your life. None of those are repairable, you don't want them to be, because people will sell you a car with a second-hand replacement airbag th
Re: (Score:2)
We no longer need to make cars that go at ludicrous speeds. My cheap run-of-the-mill car will easily do 130mph if I ask it to.
We never needed to, either. It's never been safe to go more than someplace in the 60-80 mph range, in terms of surviving unexpected equipment failure. That stuff is rare, but it still happens.
The entertainment costs an absolute pittance of space and money. [...] It's literally such a cheap bolt-on they give it away to you because people go "ooh" or consider it a necessity.
Actually, it's one of the main areas of competition now that all automakers are basically competent to build a decent car.
ABS is mandated in Europe.
ESP is now mandatory in the US and in Europe. ABS has been mandatory for a long time.
Voiding your warranty with Lenovo, even on a big server, is not something a professional would routinely or unthinkingly do. Voiding your warranty on a car capable of 130mph is something you want people in their garage to be able to choose to do? The results are unthinkable.
I don't know how it works in Europe, but here in the USA we have the Magnusson-Moss warranty act which prohibits
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, skulduggery and lobbying.
Re: (Score:2)
The average new car in the 70s vs the average new car now is a difference of $23k vs $30k adjsuted for inflation. The average car in the 70s wasn't even remotely as nice as the average car of today even ignoring value added features.
Cars are just as cheap as they always have been. People just like paying for luxury. Ironically this is the opposite of the airline question where flights in the 70s were more expensive than business class is now, yet people still complain about service of economy.
The world need
Re: (Score:2)
"Yet modern cars with all of this are far more reliable than they ever were back in the day of carburettors, doing mileage that cars of the 70s would never reach."
I know it's sample size 1, but my carbureted 1979 Mazda GLC was about the size of a modern family sedan, had every emission control device known to man, and consistently got better than 30mpg -- better than the more modern cars that replaced it. While I agree that modern cars are amazingly reliable, I submit that the problem with carburetors wasn
Re: (Score:2)
That car is an outlier. I doubt that the Volvo P1800 that has the second-most number of kilometers is even half of what that has logged. And while that is a lot of distance on a passenger car, it isn't unusual for over the road (long haul) trucks to accumulate that kind of mileage.
Besides, from what I've seen from scrapyards, the majority of vehicles there that weren't wrecked are there for something that's relatively trivial, easily fixed, or often just minor cosmetic damage because they were in a minor
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it will end up with cars producing less CO2.
Only on a test. About everything in modern cars is optimized to pass government emission and fuel economy tests. This doesn't translate to better cars is real driving situations.
For example, start and stop technology. It makes no difference in regular driving, but it improves EPA city driving fuel economy test performance. The difference? In EPA tests you are 100% stopped, in real life you often have to creep forward in traffic or even near stoplights.
Re: (Score:2)
" you often have to creep forward in traffic"
Often at idle, or minimum acceleration. No meaningful difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nobody wants these underpowered 1L engines that they try to compensate for by putting in a turbocharger. What they don't like to tell you is when your turbo or your intercooler shit itself is you're stuck with a $4000 repair bill. Then on top of that, they want to attach all sorts of non sense to the exhaust system. I don't blame these guys for going, "We're not going to develop this crap, our customers don't want it anyways."
There is a considerable difference between emissions control systems and a turbo or supercharger when it comes to performance and purpose.
So much so that it tends to make your entire comment pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the OP was pretty wild, for sure, but you're not exactly bang on target either:
1. Most private automobiles are driven at light load and part throttle most of the time,
2. But people like good power for acceleration / overtaking safely and top speed (where allowed)
3. Making high-displacement engines fuel efficient and therefore low-emissions is hard; (for certain types of emissions)
4. Making small, forced-induction engines give plenty of power when required, but consume not much the rest of the time is
Re: (Score:2)
> If you forget
It's the problem. Take some more driving lessons.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Never buy one they are shit and not nearly as economical as they suggest as well.
Shit, probably not. Ford's quality figures are similar to other automakers. Not as economical as they suggest, that part is true. The vehicle needs mild hybridization in order to actually be efficient, since it has to struggle to come up to speed. Acceleration is where hybrid systems really help mileage, besides regen of course.
All vehicles will be hybrids soon enough, and then the ecoboost may actually deliver the promised mileage.
Re: (Score:1)
I want!
Sorry but (Score:2)
It's just the old saying that no replacement for displacement, which is proven to be absurd these days.
In passenger cars, a 2.0L 4 cylinder turbo nowadays produces more power than a 3.5L 6 cylinder naturally aspired 20 years ago (that's around 300PS).
A 1.0L 3 cylinder turbo can produce about 140PS, which is sufficient for most people who wants to buy a car.
The traditional big displacement engines from the American manufacturers...I haven't seen any stats they're in any way more reliable than the turbos.
Wher
Units (Score:2)
>3.5L 6 cylinder naturally aspired 20 years ago (that's around 300PS)
So WTF is a PS ?
The unit of power is a KiloWatt , I think 76KW is about 100 HorsePower
Re: (Score:2)
So WTF is a PS ?
It's a pferdestarke. 1 of them equals 0.98632 horsepower, so they are essentially interchangeable. You commonly see power in PS when you see torque in newton-meters... which are sadly different from pound-feet.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just the old saying that no replacement for displacement, which is proven to be absurd these days.
In passenger cars, a 2.0L 4 cylinder turbo nowadays produces more power than a 3.5L 6 cylinder naturally aspired 20 years ago
But I can buy a 3.5L 6 cylinder turbo now, and your shitty 2L just isn't going to replace it.
If you know how to drive. It's in no way "underpowered"
If it can't get me from 25 to 70 in less time than it takes me to go down the slip road it's fucking dangerously underpowered.
If it can't get me from 40, past the slow cunt holding me up and back into my lane before the next bend, it's underpowered.
But I do know how to drive, and I do know where proper acceleration is a useful safety feature.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody wants these underpowered 1L engines that they try to compensate for by putting in a turbocharger. What they don't like to tell you is when your turbo or your intercooler shit itself is you're stuck with a $4000 repair bill.
Then maybe you should nerd up and learn to replace the turbocharger yourself. It's a trivial job as such things are measured and you should be able to get a reman under $1000 including gaskets. Intercoolers are quite reliable as a rule, unless you hit something.
Then on top of that, they want to attach all sorts of non sense to the exhaust system.
Improving automobile emissions makes excellent sense for those of us who like to breathe.
People deride Elon Musk and Tesla... (Score:5, Insightful)
... sometimes with good reason, but we need people like him to force innovation on these dinosaurs otherwise nothing will change even if at the end of the day the maverick loses and the dinosaurs survive but producing much better vehicles.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla semi is still a vaporware, these speciality makers are getting into the market ahead of it. It is good. It was Tesla's announcement that legitimized this segment and got them VC funding for many of them. Many of these are actually headed by Tesla Alumni engineers.
But why are you suddenly mixing up heavy duty trucks and cars? The segment that Tesla is actually shipping products, competition is still announcing vaporware no-compromise cars or selling d
Oh ok (Score:2)
So you'll be able to point me in the direction of another 2 ton electric 4 door that can do 0-60 in 3 seconds and still has a quoted range of 300 miles and is on sale today then won't you....
Come on , whats keeping you....
Re: (Score:1)
Re:People deride Elon Musk and Tesla... (Score:5, Informative)
Only Accord, Civic, Corolla and Camry outsold Model 3 in August. It is not a 1% 's car. More like 2%'s car. Very few outside the 5% buy brand new cars. 95% of Americans buy used vehicles. 90% of the Americans are driving used vehicles they bought below 20K.
Model S and X can be legitimately called 1%'s car. But Model 3 is affordable for about 30% of the people who buy new cars. https://cleantechnica.com/2018... [cleantechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Model 3 isn't a cheap car though, so it's likely that these figures are just because they did a pre-order and people had time to save up. Either that or there are a lot of rich people who can afford to drop $50k on a car.
I have a feeling that the base $35k model may be dropped, at least in Europe. They already removed it from their web site.
While I'm glad it's selling well, credit for popularizing EVs must also go to Nissan. The Leaf, especially outside the US, was the game changer. Affordable, good, an
Re: (Score:2)
The battery had no thermal management. So it was losing capacity very quickly. Lost 50% capacity in two years due to battery degradation. Nissan attempted to fix it by reducing the charging current rate. So it needed more than 12 hours of charge. Winter range drops to 75 miles on full charge. In two or three year old vehicles is around 40 miles on full charge, and you need to wrap yourself in blankets and avoid using the cabin heat.
Bol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue with he $35k model is that it's just not very competitive. For that you get a stripped down hatchback with a decent motor but very little else. No comfort features like heated/ventilated seats, minimal interior, no autopilot etc. And most of all the range isn't that impressive for the money.
You can already buy a Kona, Niro is due in a couple of months, Leaf 60 is due this year too. The Model 3 Short Range out is already expensive compared to those cars and the spec you get from their top models, l
Re: (Score:2)
But without Tesla they wont make a no-compromise EV. They will design it not to hurt the ICEV sales. Without Tesla chasing their tail there will not be a really good EV at 35K. That is why we need to pop up Tesla till the market shifts. Then we can let Tesla go to hell.
Look how crippled Leaf was. No thermal management system, 50% capacity loss in two years, reduced to 40 mile range in
Re: (Score:2)
The Model 3 isn't a cheap car though,
Auto lending has increased, and the TCO of the Model 3 is lower than an ICE-based vehicle, so while it's not cheap... it's not actually expensive, either.
While I'm glad it's selling well, credit for popularizing EVs must also go to Nissan.
Not really. Nobody not already converted to EVs sees a Leaf and says "wow, I want to buy an EV". Teslas, on the other hand... The truth is that Tesla made the EV popular, and Nissan has benefited from that... and from Tesla's backlog. Lots of people bought a Leaf because they couldn't get their hands on a Tesla. That is the very definition of not being coo
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, there is a lot of interest in the 40kWh model from non-EV people.
The M3 TCO might be lower than some ICE cars, but still not really in the affordable category. And most importantly it's much, much more expensive than the competition for long range EVs, namely the Niro, Kona and soon the Leaf 60.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Affordability isn't a static line on the graph. What's affordable to some isn't necessarily affordable to you. And that's perfectly ok, for the record.
I don't know why you have broomstick up your ass about what other people do with their money.
You make a good point (Score:2)
Somehow this doesn't seem sustainable. It's also probably why used car prices are so crazy. E.g. a low mileage used car is within 10% of the price of a new one. I paid $12.5k for a 2014 Sentra not long ago and only got it that cheap because it'd been in a fender bender....
OTOH I wish I could come up with a way to snatch trade ins from dealers and put them in the hand
Re: (Score:2)
People buying used car, out of factory warranty, want to see, touch and drive the car, may be take it to a mechanic. The internet companies take cars not in demand in some part (like AWD Subaru in Florida) and sell them where they have high local demand.
Used car market going national and transparent will put a dent into the high mark ups of high quality used cars.
Re: (Score:2)
In August more Model 3 were sold than Altima, Accent, Legacy, Impreza, Sentra, Focus, the Fiats, Chryslers, ....all these "affordable" middle class cars. Of course it also outsold all BMW cars combined, all Lexus cars combined, all MB cars combined,
Meanwhile, in the real world, there were more BMWs alone sold in August than there were Tesla cars (of any model):
http://carsalesbase.com/us-car... [carsalesbase.com]
http://carsalesbase.com/us-car... [carsalesbase.com]
Sure, not totally reliable data but substantially better than the ones you provided.
Given BMW and Mercedes alone sell more cars each month than Tesla make in a quarter, I'm feeling confident that you're talking shit.
Re: (Score:2)
The figures you cite includes cross overs, SUVs and cars. Tesla has not released model Y yet. Once it does, we can compare these numbers. Anyway there is a legitimate argument that sedan market is shrinking anyway, and the BMW sedan sale drop (double digits for three years now) is not due to Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
Once it does, we can compare these numbers.
So why did you compare these numbers?
Anyway there is a legitimate argument
Which you didn't try to make.
Seriously, there are plenty of good reasons to support Tesla. Idiots spouting bullshit to try and close down conversation merely obscure those.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway there is a legitimate argument
Which you didn't try to make.
Seriously, there are plenty of good reasons to support Tesla. Idiots spouting bullshit to try and close down conversation merely obscure those.
OK I did not give allowance in advance for a possible legitimate counter argument. Good. Point well taken.
Did you vocalize any of the plenty of good reasons to support Tesla? 4 digit ID, achievements 39, lots of postings. I cant find if you had done so. Please post links if you have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, really, the problem here is a lack of capitalism. Capitalism handles this quite well: somebody buys all the patents for these emissions technologies, positions themselves as having great emissions, causes the standards to tighten, and licenses the technology to their competitors so they make a fucking mint.
When you don't have regulations--notably, anti-trust regulations--capitalism goes away. Instead of competing, they collude, and they don't bring these technologies forward.
So you see, anti-tr
Re:People deride Elon Musk and Tesla... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, really, the problem here is a lack of capitalism.
Wrong. What you see here is an excess of capitalism. Capitalism means that capital controls the means of production, full stop. It obviously does not mean whatever you think it means.
Capitalism handles this quite well:
No, it doesn't. It requires some kind of regulatory body to make it handle this situation.
somebody buys all the patents for these emissions technologies, positions themselves as having great emissions, causes the standards to tighten, and licenses the technology to their competitors so they make a fucking mint.
The patents were developed by the automakers, and used to prevent that from happening. They did that because they stood to make more money by slowing it down, because those systems cost money and if they slow down progress, they don't have to put them on the vehicles they sell and they can keep more money — because consumers will only pay so much for a vehicle, which is based on their position in capitalism.
So you see, anti-trust regulations are the great protector of capitalism: they prevent companies from acting against market forces and suppressing the great innovation power of competition.
No, preventing competition is a perfectly normal thing to do under capitalism. Anti-trust regulations are the great protector of the free market, which paradoxically cannot exist without government interference.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but you miss the salient detail: without the anti-trust regulations, the capitalist market eventually turns into superconglomerates selling out for big money, until the final merger and acquisition cycle leaves you with one giant megacorporation which can unilaterally crush all competition by shutting off access by anyone to anything. That is your government: a single corporate dictator, owner of all.
That's not capitalism anymore. Capitalism only survives, as you observe, by the maintenance of gov
Re: (Score:2)
Bunch of baloney that is. All capital intensive markets will gravitate towards a single monopolistic provider without government restraint. The automakers got around this by colluding with each other to deliberately break competition and break the very capital policies that make the markets work.
You cannot have a functioning capital market without anti-trust controls. Any market with significant capital spending will devolve automatically towards a single monopoly provider in such a case without government
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is that capitalism, it's the ultimate end-goal of capitalism. No-one runs a business because they want to compete, they run a business because they want to crush everyone and enjoy a profitable monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, really, the problem here is a lack of capitalism. Capitalism handles this quite well: somebody buys all the patents for these emissions technologies, positions themselves as having great emissions, causes the standards to tighten, and licenses the technology to their competitors so they make a fucking mint.
*Sigh* another person who doesn't understand the difference between the political concept of capitalism and the economic concept of the perfect market.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I don't think the economic perfect market can exist without political controls to keep it running. It'll turn itself into a monopolistic quasi-government unless you come in with a broomstick and break up the salt bridges now and then.
Re: (Score:2)
An economic perfect market exists in theory and is the perfectly unstable form of a market in a capitalist policitcal system. In the absence of any regulation this market will degrade to full monopoly which is the capitalist system's stable state.
No collusion, volks. (Score:1)
Do not expect too much... (Score:1, Interesting)
... Except a token gesture. Germany's car industry is vital to German economy, and Europe's economy IS German economy. That's just the way it is. That's why Dieselgate was a powerful shock to the whole EU and a "friendly" reminder from president Obama that the US can turn off the EU at any given moment without Europeans being able to do anything about it. Junker is huffing and puffing and making a big show of challenging Trump's America because he knows that retaliatory measures against the EU would be oppo
Re: (Score:1)
Europe's economy IS German economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) - 2017 figures for GDP EU: 20.85 trillion USD, Germany: 4.15 trillion USD.
https://www.thelocal.de/20150924/what-the-vw-scandal-means-for-germanys-economy - Germany's car industry sales are 14% of Germany's GDP.
Certainly, car industry is very important for Germany. And also certainly, Germany's economy is very important for the EU. But to claim an equality between these is a hyperbole.
That's why Dieselgate was a powerful shock to the whole EU and a "friendly" reminder from president Obama that the US can turn off the EU at any given moment without Europeans being able to do anything about it
Also, a significant portion of the car sales does NOT go to the
Re: (Score:2)
If the EU tips over, the US is going down with it.
Re: (Score:2)
The US will "kindly" step in and pick up the pieces.
Really? Not China, or Brazil, or Japan and Korea, or a newly independent UK along with its Commonwealth (plenty of rich people in India these days).
Sorry. Wrong company (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? (Score:2)
There's little doubt that automakers would sell their grandmothers into slavery if the price was right, I'm a bit curious why they would take the legal risk of conspiring to suppress development of a spectrum of emission control technologies. The cost of plugging away lethargically on emission control device development is low ("Hey we're working on better catalysts. But it's slow. Developing new technologies takes time"). The cost of getting caught is likely to be very high.
Re: (Score:2)
There's little doubt that automakers would sell their grandmothers into slavery if the price was right, I'm a bit curious why they would take the legal risk of conspiring to suppress development of a spectrum of emission control technologies.
It couldn't be more obvious: they stood to make more money by not putting this equipment into vehicles than they stood to lose by getting fined later. So long as punishments don't fit crimes, you will only see more of this kind of behavior.
Collusion (Score:1)
Interesting dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Europe has much stricter environmental laws, but it turns out European manufacturers are shady as fuck. This is pretty much the perennial argument about private enterprise throwing up their hands once the government steps in.
Re: (Score:2)
Also good for consumers: if multiple manufacturers are using common parts, the part availability goes up, and the pricing goes down due to economies of scale.
We can't have that, can we? Better bust up this arrangement so we end up with a whole lot of snowflake emissions crap that is impossible to repair.