While technically true, that's not who the article is about. People who roll coal are not doing it because they have significantly more performance that way.
I had one of the "evil" diesel Jetta's and I miss that car. 40+ MPG, great performance up/down hills, not excessively expensive. In the settlement, I had to choose between giving the car up and accepting a to-be-announced retrofit.
It never rolled coal but the emissions were still a lie; This is where credibility is lost, not the EPA.
> While technically true, that's not who the article is about.
It is, in fact, what the article is about. The entire article is just denying the existence of a middle ground position or the fact that there's a constrained optimization problem here.
`Second, the idea that emissions controls "ruin performance" is outdated.`
`Either you care about performance within the rules, or you admit you don’t care about the consequences of your actions.`
`Tuners have two choices... Keep crying about regulations while clinging to an outdated, polluting past... [or] Embrace innovation—developing high-performance, emissions-compliant solutions that don’t sacrifice power for legality.` (wow, talk about a GPT-authored sentence)
While technically true, that's not who the article is about. People who roll coal are not doing it because they have significantly more performance that way.
I had one of the "evil" diesel Jetta's and I miss that car. 40+ MPG, great performance up/down hills, not excessively expensive. In the settlement, I had to choose between giving the car up and accepting a to-be-announced retrofit.
It never rolled coal but the emissions were still a lie; This is where credibility is lost, not the EPA.