
Tariffs on China aren’t the way to win the EV arms race – getting serious on EVs is
More Videos
Published
1 year agoon
By
admin
News came out on Friday that President Biden is set to quadruple tariffs on Chinese EVs to protect the US auto industry from the rapid growth of Chinese EV manufacturing.
But instead of just de facto banning the competition from giving Americans access to affordable hot new EVs, the US should instead try making affordable hot new EVs itself.
The global auto industry is in a time of flux.
Cars are changing quickly, as is car manufacturing. The leaders of today, and of the last half-century, are not guaranteed to remain the leaders in the face of new entrants and new technology. And most of all, a new powertrain – electric – that will account for roughly 100% of cars on the road within a couple decades, which no serious person disputes.
Further, as one of the most polluting sectors globally and the most polluting in rich countries, it is necessary that transportation clean up its act, and fast, in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The sooner this happens, the easier it will be for all of us.
The new entrants to car manufacturing aren’t just in the form of startups like Tesla or Rivian, but in the form of nations which previously did not have a large presence in international auto manufacturing, but will take advantage of this flux to become more competitive in a changing global market.
The largest of these new entrants is the second most populous country in the world, the world’s largest exporter and its second-largest economy: China. China has heretofore not been a major player in car exports, but that’s changing.
China has been spending the last couple decades building up its manufacturing base, particularly in electronics, and particularly focusing on securing raw material supplies and partnerships and on building up refining capacity.
The strongest move in this respect has been Xi Jinping’s centerpiece Belt and Road Initiative, a set of policies intended to secure trade routes and mineral partnerships between China and less-developed, mineral-rich countries, generally in exchange for infrastructure development. It’s not unlike the actions of the West via the IMF and the World Bank, investing in development of poorer countries in order to secure material partnerships.
All of these entities have been credibly accused of exploitative actions towards the developing world – generally utilizing terms like economic imperialism, debt-trap diplomacy, or neocolonialism.
But the point of this is that China has been getting ready for this transition for a long time through concerted national effort, whereas the US is only recently doing so (via the Inflation Reduction Act and its attempts to onshore/”friend-shore” EV manufacturing and sourcing).
Japan and the 1970s as parable
We have, in fact, seen this story before. In the 1970s, the US auto industry was rocked by dual crises, a gas price crisis that left their large, gas-guzzling vehicles less competitive, and a steel crisis which greatly affected US steel manufacturers.
The steel crisis came courtesy of Japan, a country whose manufacturing methods far outstripped America’s, and which was determined to undercut American steel. It could produce steel cheaper and better than the US, and the low prices that Japan was offering were simply unbeatable by American manufacturers. As a result, many American steelworkers lost their jobs.
Here’s an article about the steel crisis from 2021 from the Alliance for American Manufacturing, which makes parallels to today’s situation between the US and China. In it, former steelworkers are quoted about what happened at the time:
The cost was cheaper, and their quality was better, too. We didn’t care about quality because we were the only game in town forever.
-Ed Cook, former president USW Local 3069
The U.S. steelmakers and, as time wore on, the automakers, were being outperformed by Japan and their superior technology advancements. Our employers didn’t invest in new technology until recognizing the concept of foreign competition was here to stay.
-Doug May, retired steelworker
The US tried to stop the bleeding with tariffs after accusing Japan of illegally “dumping” steel at unfairly subsidized below-market rates to gain export market share. But the tariffs didn’t stop the advancement of the technologically-superior Japanese steel industry, which remained strong even after their imposition.
The early-70s steel crisis was soon joined by the mid-to-late-70s oil crisis, where the US (and much of the Western world) saw oil shortages and high gas prices. At the time, American automakers mostly produced giant gas guzzlers, and Japanese automakers exploited this crisis by rapidly introducing smaller, more fuel efficient cars to America, just as the environmental movement was starting to gain steam and emissions regulations were starting to take effect.
Automakers responded by undergoing half-baked attempts to meet the standards while still trying to sell their gas guzzlers, by lobbying governments not to implement regulations, and begging for tariffs against competing Japanese autos. Not by actually rising to the challenge and making better vehicles, but rather by asking for the rules to be changed so they could get a free win by doing nothing new.
Eventually, Japan agreed to voluntary export restrictions and US automakers managed to get in gear and start making better cars. But as a result of this disruption in the 1970s, Japan is still considered one of the premier manufacturing industries in the world (automotive and otherwise), and has held the crown of the largest auto-exporting country on the globe for decades.
Between preparation, determination, and opportunity, Japan was able to gain a lasting lead.
Does any of this sound familiar?
China is the new Japan
Well, Japan was the world’s largest auto exporter… until now. It depends on how you count it, but Japan was likely dethroned by China as the world’s largest car exporter in the past year.
All of China’s effort to build EV manufacturing bore fruit – while the country was initially slow to adopt EVs, in 2023 it had a whopping 37% EV market share (up from 5% in 2020 and .84% in 2015), leapfrogging several early adopter nations. But EV manufacturing has grown even faster, with Chinese EV production outpacing domestic demand and exports rising rapidly in recent years as well.
Why did this happen? It turns out, Japanese industry is acting similarly to US industry at the moment, in that it is dragging its feet on electric vehicles (in fact, even moreso than US manufacturers are). European manufacturers, too, are trying to slow the transition down. Automakers are even cutting production plans in a rapidly growing EV market, possibly in a cynical move to influence regulations, even though it’s clear their targets are too low already.
While Biden has pushed for stronger emissions standards, automakers seem determined to lobby against progress, to give themselves a false sense of security that they can take their sweet time in transitioning to EVs.
But regardless of how much automakers kick and scream about needing to build something other than massive gas guzzling land yachts, technology and world industry will continue their inexorable advancement. The industry can catch up, or it can continue dragging its feet and moving slower than its competition, somehow hoping to catch up from the losing position it’s already in.
None of this kicking and screaming is happening in China.
As mentioned above, Chinese government has focused heavily on securing materials and on encouraging upstart EV makers (with a total of either $29 billion or $173 billion in subsidies from 2009-2022, depending on whose numbers you accept, either of which are less than the hundreds of billions in subsidy allocated by the US in the Inflation Reduction Act, or the $7 trillion global subsidy for fossil fuels).
And Chinese EV makers aren’t playing a silly game of limiting their own commitments in order to push a myth of falling sales (that said, Chinese dealer associations were granted a mere 6-month pause in regulations responding to a glut of unsellable gas cars – while also demanding that automakers stop building noncompliant vehicles immediately). Instead, they’re building cars as fast as they can, selling them as fast as they can, and exporting them in as many ships as they can get their hands on – to the point where they’re even building ships of their own.
This has led to accusations that China is “dumping” EVs on overseas markets, with Europe – which also subsidizes its own EV industry – considering retroactive tariffs. The US is also set to announce a 4x increase in existing tariffs against Chinese EVs. The irony is, if Chinese taxpayers are subsidizing manufacturing before sending those cars overseas, that represents a wealth transfer from Chinese taxpayers to American ones. And another irony: China has so often been criticized for not doing enough on climate change, and now we’re criticizing them of doing too much, both with EVs and solar.
This all sounds quite similar to the situation with Japan in the 70s.
But just as with Japan, simply blocking out better options won’t kick the West’s industry into gear. On the contrary, it will make our industry more complacent. And we’re already seeing that happening, as automakers keep begging governments to let them continue their unsustainable business models even as competition looms.
Do tariffs work?
But that’s just the thing, tariffs don’t generally work. We saw how they failed to forestall Japan, but there are many other examples showing their ineffectiveness or weird side effects, and economists generally agree that they are a poor measure to help domestic industry. Some company leadership favors the idea of tariffs, while other (perhaps more sober) leaders do not.
On the one hand, it could help domestic auto jobs, because free trade for Chinese EVs could result in a race to the bottom for auto manufacturing. And it could result in Chinese companies trying to set up manufacturing in the US to avoid tariffs – which could help US auto jobs, but these moves would likely spark a whole new round of controversy when announced.
But on the other hand, China is likely to implement retaliatory tariffs which will hurt US workers (for example, soybean tariffs which ruined the US soybean industry in 2018 – and resulted in more soybean demand from Brazil, which led to extensive clearcutting and fires in the Amazon). And the nature of today’s globalized economy and complex supplier relationships around the world can result in a lot of chaos when a major player implements a major tariff.
So in the end, US jobs likely won’t benefit overall, and US consumers will simply be denied a chance to buy cheap new EVs from China – like, for example, the excellent Volvo EX30. The EX30 is currently made in Geely’s China factory and starts at around $35k even after the 25% tariff.
A 100% tariff would bring it to a starting price of ~$54k instead (unless or until Geely moves production out of China, something BYD has also considered). The EX30 also happens to be one of the only small EVs that will be available in the US in the near term, so a tariff would further doom US consumers to the plague of SUVs that has befallen us.
By raising prices of vehicles that could undercut US autos, what this means is that inflation – the price of goods for US consumers, which includes autos – will increase. Cars will be more expensive as US manufacturers will have less competition, less reason to bring costs down, and less reason to offer reasonably-sized models. We’ll be stuck with the expensive land yachts that US automakers have been punting at us for so many years. People will continue to accuse EVs of being too expensive – as a result of policy that directly makes them so.
Meanwhile, one of Biden’s signature legislative wins, the Inflation Reduction Act, does include a different type of protectionist provision that seems to have accomplished its goals. It offers tax credits to EV purchasers, as long as those EVs include domestically-sourced components and are assembled in North America. This lowers the effective price of EVs, helping buyers, and stimulates investment in US manufacturing as well.
As a result of this and Biden’s previous Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, $209 billion has been invested in new or expanded factory projects, which will create 241,000 EV jobs in America. So it’s not impossible to incentivize domestic production – but smart industrial policy and subsidies will generally work better than unnecessary trade wars.
The politics factor
Of course there is a large short-term factor to this decision: the US election, which is just a few months out.
In this election, President Biden is running against a candidate who has no issue being loudly racist, and channels that racism into protectionist trade measures. The US’ current 25% tariff against China was implemented by him in 2018, and a centerpiece of his policy promises revolve around extending these short-sighted measures.
This trade policy is not made out of a consideration of what will be best for the auto industry or the US, but rather is a populist way to seize on Sinophobia, scapegoating the US’ main geopolitical competitor for various social ills happening domestically.
But that sort of sentiment is popular. US sentiment towards China is at record lows, making it a popular target for scapegoating. The sharp turn downwards in recent years is likely influenced by the loud scapegoating from Mr Trump, though it has affected voters across the party identification spectrum.
So Biden’s decision to increase tariffs on Chinese EVs may end up being popular, regardless of its positive or negative effects – after all, Trump’s previous round hurt the US economy, but was still popular.
Protectionism is, after all, historically popular with industrial unions. Biden has secured support from the UAW, a group that has been racking up a lot of impressive wins lately, and wants to expand union power further (for which it has the support of the President). UAW has asked for higher tariffs, and Biden has taken their advice before.
But it is also good to remember that this election is indeed important. While President Biden’s tariff policy mirrors that of Mr. Trump, Biden’s overall environmental policy does stand out as head and shoulders above the destructive, ill-considered nonsense we saw from the EPA under fossil fuel advocates Scott Pruitt and Andrew Wheeler.
On EVs specifically, Mr. Trump has already begged for $1 billion in bribes from oil companies (soon after scrambling to make bond in his half-billion-dollar fraud case), promising that if they give him these bribes, he would try again to kill electric vehicles (which he failed at last time) – in a move that would actually benefit the Chinese auto industry, and would harm US consumers’ health and pocketbooks.
So while this EV tariff increase doesn’t seem like a great idea, the alternative is, somehow, much worse. Isn’t that just the story of US politics in a nutshell.
But will the tariff change minds? While tariffs are popular, Trump has associated himself so closely with protectionist trade policy that voters with a thirst for protectionism seem more likely to vote for the candidate that has done more to shout his bombastic racist ideas from the rooftops.
It does seem that, with anti-Chinese sentiment at an all time high, any mention of China short-circuits a certain percentage of the electorate. Despite the demonstrably positive effect that Biden’s EV policy has produced in terms of investment in US EV manufacturing, that very same policy is often ignorantly criticized for helping China – which it does not do. Just have a look in the comments below, we’re sure a number of people who did not get this far into the article will echo exactly this incorrect sentiment.
But that’s a hard thing to explain, which has taken me thousands of words already (sorry) to merely scratch the surface of. The simplicity of “China bad” is a lot more comforting and simple to accept, despite lacking nuance.
How do we beat China? Not by tariffs, but by trying harder
Apologies for taking so long to get around to the point, but I hope that after laying out the actions China has taken to grow its EV industry, the history of foreign entrants into the auto industry, the effectiveness of tariffs, and the effectiveness of other trade policies and the politics behind them, the conclusion of how to go forward is already clear.
In order to beat China, we need to stop messing around with comforting but ill-considered policies that won’t work, and instead commit ourselves to the massive industrial shift that we need in order to catch up with a country that has already been doing so for over a decade.
We cannot do this by moving slower than a target that is already ahead of us. We have to move faster. And the West doesn’t get there by taking $1 billion in bribes to tank domestic industry, by softening targets or backtracking on EV plans. In particular, having one party that actively opposes any attempt to prepare the US auto industry for the future is certainly not helpful. This back-and-forth is not happening in China – they are committed.
The US auto industry has become accustomed to offering huge, expensive gas guzzlers, and to being “the only game in town.” But that didn’t work for the US in the 70s, and it won’t work now.
One of the most common criticisms of EVs is their unaffordability, but the BYD Seagull will cost under $10k (domestically) and the sporty Xiaomi SU7 is about $30k. That might be hard to compete with, but the US has already seen a cheap, great EV in the form of the workmanlike Chevy Bolt, which cost under $20k new after incentives before production ended. So it’s possible, and just because it’s hard doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.
Even if prices on small Chinese EVs are unattainable, the way to solve that is through smart industrial and materials policy (as China has spent years on and we’ve only just started), through targeted subsidy to a new and important industry (which we’re doing, though republicans want to eliminate that), and by perhaps redirecting tax breaks that currently encourage giant vehicles to stop encouraging huge gas guzzlers and instead encourage right-sized EVs (and end other policies like the EPA footprint rule which EPA is finally doing something about).
Then there’s the little issue of massive implicit subsidies to fossil fuels, costing the US economy $700 billion per year. The solution to that is to put a price on pollution, as supported by virtually all economists and a majority of Americans in every state, which would help to incentivize cleaner autos and disincentivize dirtier ones. And all of this is necessary to confront climate change, which we can do alongside taking actions to ensure we are ready for the future of automobiles.
So, if you’ll forgive me for taking this apparently unpopular anti-tariff stance, I think it’s clear that simply doubling the price of the competition isn’t the best way to ensure US auto stays competitive. It won’t help US consumers, it likely won’t have a net positive effect on US jobs (across sectors), it will lull industry into a false sense of security, it doesn’t help the environment, and perhaps least important but still worth mention, it violates the oft-repeated-but-never-honestly-held principle that government should “avoid picking winners and losers.”
Instead, lets focus on encouraging the new tech and discouraging the old tech, and moving quickly to beat China at their own game. If we want to pick winners, then why don’t we pick us.
This is how we get the American auto industry, a jewel in the crown of America for more than a century, into competitive shape for the future. We should have been doing more earlier, but as the famous (possibly Chinese) proverb says: “the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best time is today.”
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
You may like
Environment
Tesla (TSLA) crashes after Trump threatens to set DOGE on Elon Musk
Published
4 hours agoon
July 1, 2025By
admin

Tesla’s stock (TSLA) crashed by as much as 5% in pre-market trading after President Trump threatened to set DOGE on Elon Musk, who has been criticizing his ‘Big Beautiful Bill’.
After being kindly shown the door to the White House last month, Musk had a brief moment of clarity and started to criticize Trump and the Republican party, which he helped elect with almost $300 million of his own money in the 2024 elections.
He highlighted how Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” is expected to increase the deficit and debt. The Tesla CEO even linked Trump to Jeffrey Epstein, something that has been well known for decades, but Musk conveniently ignored it as he was backing the President and wearing hats that read, “Trump was right about everything.”
Musk quickly calmed down and even apologized for “going too far” and started praising Trump again.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
That didn’t last long.
Over the last few days, as the Senate attempts to pass Trump’s budget and tax bill, Musk has renewed his efforts to halt the legislation.
The CEO appeared to renew the attacks after the Senate updated the bill to kill the EV incentive sooner and to increase taxes on solar and wind projects.
However, Musk said that he doesn’t mind EV and renewable energy subsidies going away, but he believes that fossil fuel subsidies should also be removed, which is not in the plans at all.
Trump campaigned on Musk’s money, claiming that he would get America to “drill, baby, drill” again.
The CEO went as far as threatening any Senator who vote for the bill, all Republicans, to face his money in their next primary. He added that if the bill passes, he will create a new “America Party.’
Musk’s attacks have focused on the bill itself and the Republicans voting for it, but Trump likes to call it his bill, and unsurprisingly, he is unhappy with Musk.
Last night, he took to Truth Social to highlight again that Musk “would probably have to close up shop and head back to South Africa” without US government subsidies.
The President then suggested that he could have DOGE, a department that Musk created, go after him and the subsidies that his companies get:
Elon Musk knew, long before he so strongly Endorsed me for President, that I was strongly against the EV Mandate. It is ridiculous, and was always a major part of my campaign. Electric cars are fine, but not everyone should be forced to own one. Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE. Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!
Tesla’s stock dropped by more than 4% in pre-market trading following the President’s threat.
Musk responded to the President by pointing out that he is asking to remove the subsidies, but he didn’t add his usual caveat of also removing all subsidies for fossil fuel.
Electrek’s Take
It’s both sad and funny to see Elon now. It’s sad because the US is plunging back into an energy dark age of relying on fossil fuels. Still, it’s amusing because Elon is acting as if he’s just now realizing what he has done, despite everyone but a few cult members screaming at him that this was going to happen for the last year.
Elon got what he wanted out of Trump with his $300 million, and now, he realizes that his influence has limits and that Trump is going to do way more damage than just what Musk wanted out of him: to stop illegal immigration and the so scary “woke mind virus.”
The result will be a significant blow to the growth of electric vehicles and clean energy in the US, and Tesla will be affected in the process, exactly what we have been saying for the last year.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
How California cops are now using simple drones to catch illegal e-bike riders
Published
4 hours agoon
July 1, 2025By
admin

Police across the US are cracking down on illegal use of out-of-class e-bikes or non-street-legal electric motorcycles used on public roads. It used to be that if you sped off on an illegal electric dirt bike or mini bike after a traffic stop in California, there was a good chance you’d get away. Most police departments don’t want to engage in high-speed chases over these types of violations, especially if the rider isn’t wearing a helmet or is weaving through dense traffic. And since these types of bikes almost never have license plates, merely outrunning or outmaneuvering a police cruiser through some bushes or over a sidewalk was usually enough to evade justice. But lately, a new kind of chase is happening – from above.
Several California police departments are now turning to small, simple-to-operate drones similar to consumer drones to track down illegal e-bike and electric dirt bike riders who flee traffic stops.
These drones, often built on platforms used by consumer drones but with upgraded camera equipment, are quiet, effective, and don’t put pedestrians or officers at risk like a high-speed pursuit.

And while the tech isn’t new, the way it’s being deployed marks a turning point in how cities are responding to the rise of unregistered, high-powered electric motorbikes and minibikes on public roads.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Recently, the Irvine Police Department shared details on how they caught a minor who was illegally operating a Stark Varg electric dirt bike on public roads and then sped away from police attempting to conduct a traffic stop.
“A 16-year-old juvenile recklessly fled from officers during an attempted traffic stop on Jamboree, reaching high speeds. The rider ran multiple red lights, placing innocent lives in danger. Thankfully, with the assistance of our drone team, officers quickly located the teenager and safely took him into custody. He was later released to his parent. The juvenile was unlicensed, and the motorcycle was purchased by a parent who knowingly allowed their child to ride it. That parent was cited, and the motorcycle was impounded.”

In a similar case just a few weeks ago, the Desert Hot Springs Police Department used a similar drone setup to catch a juvenile illegally operating a non-street-legal minibike on public roads.
As the department shared in a social media post mocking the rider, “Officers attempted to stop a suspect illegally riding a mini bike on city streets. Instead of pulling over like a reasonable person, he chose to flee… on a mini bike. Little did he know, our drone team was already in the air and had front-row seats to this low-speed drama. They followed him as he weaved through traffic, blew through stop signs, and ultimately led us right back to his own front door.”
The DHSPD explained that after the drone watched from above and followed the rider home, police officers arrived and knocked on his front door, which he promptly answered. “He was arrested at his residence without incident,” the post continued. “The mini bike? Impounded. The escape attempt? Hilarious.”
Some police departments in California are still employing police helicopters as their go-to “eye in the sky” for tracking Sur-ron riders who try to run from police, but these light and inexpensive drones are proving to be a more cost-effective and efficient alternative.


The rise of unregistered and often illegally modified electric motorbikes that don’t fit inside existing three-class electric bicycle regulations – many of them closer to light motorcycles than bicycles – has created a real challenge for cities. Riders can disappear down alleyways, weave through traffic, or vanish into neighborhoods where a patrol car can’t follow.
But a few grand for a simple drone? That’s a safer, cheaper solution that can hover and follow quietly from above, sometimes all the way to a suspect’s front door.
This drone-based enforcement strategy raises some interesting questions – not just about surveillance, but about how cities will regulate a fast-evolving micromobility landscape. As out-of-class electric bikes and light electric dirt bikes blur legal categories and create enforcement gaps, tech like drones is stepping in to close them.
Whether that’s a good thing or not depends on your perspective. But one thing’s for sure: the days of just gunning it and getting away are coming to an end.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
EV with fake engine noises recalled for not having the correct fake engine noises
Published
15 hours agoon
July 1, 2025By
admin

The Dodge Charger Daytona EV made headlines when it rolled out fake engine noises as a way to make the EV appeal to muscle car drivers. As it turns out, they weren’t the right sort of fake engine noises – and now Stellantis has to recall 8,000 of them for a fix.
According to the ChryCo fans at Mopar Insider, Stellantis is recalling ~8,390 examples of its 2024 to 2025 Dodge Charger Daytona EVs because of an exterior amplifier that may be missing critical enabling the amp to emit exterior sounds – including the Federally mandated pedestrian warning sounds designed to keep pedestrians safe.
What’s more, the recall’s “suspect period” reportedly begins on 30APR2024, when the first 2024 Dodge Charger Daytona was produced, and ends 18MAR2025 … when the last Charger EV was produced.
RECALL CHRONOLOGY
- On April 17, 2025, the FCA US LLC (“FCA US”) Technical Safety and Regulatory Compliance (“TSRC”) organization opened an investigation into certain 2024–2025 model year Dodge Charger vehicles that may not emit exterior sound.
- From April 17, 2025, through May 13, 2025, FCA US TSRC met with FCA US Engineering and the supplier to understand all potential failure modes associated with the issue. They also reviewed warranty data, field records, and customer assistance records to determine field occurrences.
- On May 14, 2025, the FCA US TSRC organization determined that a vehicle build issue existed on certain vehicles related to a lack of EV exterior sound, potentially resulting in noncompliance with FMVSS No. 141.
Without the software patch, the vehicles don’t comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 141, “Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles.” The rule requires noisemakers for EVs and hybrids when operating under 19 mph, the safest speeds for pedestrians.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Basically, if you have a Dodge Charger EV, expect to get a recall notice.
It just keeps getting funnier

If you’re not familiar with the Charger Daytona EV’s “Fratzonic Chambered Exhaust,” it’s a system that employs a combination of digital sound synthesis and a physical tuning chamber (translation: a speaker) to produce a 126 decibel sound that approximately imitates a Hellcat Hemi V8 ICE. That’s loud enough to cause most people physical pain, according to Yale University – putting it somewhere between a loud rock concert and a passenger jet at takeoff.
While you could argue that such noises are part and parcel with powerful combustion, they’re completely irrelevant to an EV, and speak to a particular sort of infantile delusion of masculinity that I, frankly, have never been able to wrap my head around. Something akin to the, “Hey, look at me! I’m a big tough guy!” attention-whoring of a suburban Harley rider in a “Sons of Anarchy” novelty cut, without even enough courage to ride a motorcycle, you know?
You know – and I bet you can help me dial in the the comparison to perfection (and help me explain why the car just isn’t selling) in the comments section at the bottom of the page.
SOURCE: Mopar Insiders; featured image by Stellantis.

If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Trending
-
Sports3 years ago
‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year ago
Story injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years ago
Game 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years ago
MLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years ago
Japan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years ago
Button battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years ago
Game-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike