AD #2670 – Jeep Renegade Plug-In Hybrid, Trump Fights California Over Emissions, VW Provides EV Kit for Classic Beetles

September 6th, 2019 at 11:45am

Audio-only version:

Listen to “AD #2670 – Jeep Renegade Plug-In Hybrid, Trump Fights California Over Emissions, VW Provides EV Kit for Classic Beetles” on Spreaker.

Follow us on social media:

Instagram Twitter Facebook

Runtime: 6:46

0:08 President Trump Talks with GM’s Mary Barra
0:41 President Trump Fights California Over Emissions
1:24 Self Cleaning Sensors on Ford’s Autonomous Vehicles
2:34 New VW E-Up! Gets Larger Battery, Increased Range
3:17 VW Provides EV Kit for Classic Beetles
3:51 Jeep Renegade Plug-In Hybrid Set For 2020
4:54 GM to Integrate Google Into Next-Gen Infotainment
5:30 Karim Habib Appointed Head of Kia Design
5:43 Cadillac’s Deborah Wahl Promoted to GM CMO

Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone and Kiekert.

»Subscribe to Podcast |

5661 rss-logo-png-image-68050 stitcher-icon youtube-logo-icon-65475

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website:

47 Comments to “AD #2670 – Jeep Renegade Plug-In Hybrid, Trump Fights California Over Emissions, VW Provides EV Kit for Classic Beetles”

  1. Kit Gerhart Says:

    VW needs to use a bigger motor for the E-UP and Beetle conversion. It doesn’t need to be fast, but 0-100 km/h in 12 seconds? That’s 1300cc diesel slow.

  2. Bob Wilson Says:

    If I could just get my Tesla referral code in everyone of these VW conversions …

  3. Larry D. Says:

    1 I thought it was a typo.

  4. ChuckGrenci Says:

    With somewhat “tongue in cheek”: If California gets denied, of establishing their own emissions criteria, they could always enact lower speed limits on their highways (you know, back to the old double nickel of the ’70′s) but maybe they’re just playing politics.

    With GM one of the poorest companies for getting the word out (to their customers), and their declining sales, what genius decided they didn’t need a CMO (until now). When a company communicates, even if the news isn’t that great, the public at least knows that the company knows that they need to work of the problem(s) and that can build trust.

  5. Larry D. Says:

    “61-kW electric motor helps move the e-up! to 100 km/h in about 12-seconds, ”

    I bet 99.99% this is a BIG Typo. No way.

    The range (the real range) sucks, and the price will not be attractive.

    I doubt VW has any plans to sell this dog in the US. If it does, it will have the fate of the Fiat 500 and 500e

  6. Kit Gerhart Says:

    5 If the weight approaches 3000 pounds, possible, with the gas and diesel versions at about 2100, the 12 second could be correct. My 100 hp, about 3200 pound Jetta diesel wagon had similar acceleration. Why don’t they just use a bigger motor in that electric, though? It wouldn’t add much to the cost.

  7. Larry D. Says:

    5 OK now I have also seen the video and read the text more carefully. Here are some extra comments:

    The VW EV shown looks identical in body-styling to the smallest, cheapest VW, the VW “UP!” model, which is much smaller than the Golf, and even smaller than the VW Polo which itself is one size smaller than the GOlf.

    You can buy an ICE VW “UP!” for about 10,000 Euros already.

    So the tiny-real-range EV “UP!” at 20,000 Euros is NO Bargain, it is twice the price of its ICE twin!

    Which 100% confirms my comment yesterday that the ONLY Automaker who still offers EVS at the SAME, and not TWICE, the price of their ICE equivalents, is the only SUCCESSFUL EV MAker, ie, T E S L A.

    And VW seems to have learned NOTHING from these 6 years of Tesla dominance of the ev MARKETS.

    too late, too little, and DOOMED. Only in Europe will it sell some units with heavy incentives. Not in the US.

  8. Larry D. Says:

    6 not with a huge 67 kw battery. I still smell a big typo here

  9. Larry D. Says:

    8oops it is the motor that is 61 kw, not the battery being 67 KWH.

    So no typo, and the 12 secs are really slow.

  10. Lambo2015 Says:

    4 I agree that allowing individual states to create their own requirements that affect the manufacturers is silly. Their should only be one US standard for emissions and fuel economy requirements. This goes to show how ineffective politicians are in negotiating congress to fulfill their needs. Its easier for them to vote with their party ignore the greater good and then just past laws that only apply to their state. Useless and costly.

  11. Kit Gerhart Says:

    7 Yeah, I’m sure they wouldn’t try to sell it in the US, both because of the performance, but the size, similar to the Fiat 500.

  12. Lambo2015 Says:

    Self cleaning sensors; Maybe on the larger ones they will implement the rotating clear film that they use on NASCAR onboard cameras. Its just a reel to reel of clear protective film that covers the lens and removes the debris and bug splatter. Incorporate a cleaning of the film and reuse.

  13. Kit Gerhart Says:

    10 In many cases, the car companies have just been building all of them to CA emissions, because it has been very doable for years, and it’s easier to make only one version. As far as CA having their own rules, that market is bigger than most countries’ markets, so it would probably be worth the car companies to sell in CA, almost no matter what.

    I suspect that, for now, the car companies will just do what they’ve been doing. If Trump is gone in a year and a half, things will probably be more-or-less back to normal, and if he is re-elected, they can decide what to do for the next 4 years.


    The states can always up the registration fees for vehicles with a certain carbon score. That would not be in conflict with the federal government. In fact, it is probably better all around that this is how the states do it. Of course then california would have to disban most of CARB and lose their carbon credit schemes. They don’t want that money and power to ever go away though. If anyone thought the struggle between California and the federal government was about the environment, they were badly mis-informed.

  15. Lambo2015 Says:

    13) 2007 is when 4 other states started using the CARB standards. In 2009 it went up to 14 states and in 2013 AZ also adopted the standards. I know California makes up 30% of the total US sales and that’s a lot of power.
    Not sure what manufacturers have just gone and made all their vehicles CARB compliant, but if its a reasonable goal then the EPA should adopt it and eliminate the separate requirements.

  16. Kit Gerhart Says:

    15 Manufacturers sometimes use CARB standards for specific models sold nationally, but not the company’s entire fleet. An article on says that “most” vehicles now use CARB emission standards nationally, but they didn’t define “most.”

    As far as fuel economy standards, who knows. Based on what I’ve seen on the road the last couple times I’ve been in CA, the new cars sold there are probably already are a lot more fuel efficient than the national average. The Teslas would help too, in that regard.

  17. WineGeek Says:

    Can anyone tell me why Trump is so set against the automakers independently agreeing with California to set higher fuel economy standards? Oh, wait a minute I just remembered that the standards were an Obama mandate and we all know if Obama did it then Trump wants to undo it manufacturers agreeing or not.

    John, one other thing does the new GM collaboration with Google mean they will no longer offer Apple CarPlay?

  18. Lambo2015 Says:

    Honestly I think Trump is just trying to keep the regulatory requirements kept to the EPA and the same for the whole country, which I agree with. Not saying that EPA cannot adopt CARB recommendations but allowing states to create their own separate requirements could easily get out of hand. For instance what if NY now decided that they have too many pedestrian accidents and now they require all cars to have exterior airbags for pedestrians. Or more ludicrous Florida decides the heat kills too many kids or animals locked inside and wants manufacturers to automatically start the car and turn on the AC if it detects movement inside over a certain temp. The auto manufacturers could be bombarded with individual state requirements that could make it totally cost prohibitive to meet all of them. Which is why we have Federal mandates for crash and safety requirements which also include emissions and fuel economy standards. If a state doesn’t like those requirements then they should lobby to raise the bar to what they want not expect manufacturers to build to their specification. CARB has managed to do it only because of the large portion of sales Calf accounts for.. If Iowa would have tried it the car manufacturers probably would have told them to pound sand. IMO

  19. DonC Says:

    “I agree that allowing individual states to create their own requirements that affect the manufacturers is silly. ”

    Actually it’s inherently reasonable and by design. The Clean Air Act specifically allows California to set a standard different than the federal standard so long as its standard is at least as stringent as the federal standard, specifically requires the EPA to grant a waiver for the higher standard, AND specifically allows any state the ability to follow the California standard rather than the federal standard. There isn’t any ambiguity on these points, which is clear if you read the statute.

    The purpose of having two competing standards was to encourage a “race to the top”. This should be clear from the fact that the “Clean Air Act” is the antithesis of the “Dirty Air Act”. LOL

    Two interesting points are that CARB was established by Ronald Reagan and that with the EU and China setting standards in conjunction with CARB the car companies aren’t going to be following a weaker federal standard in any case. Assuming there will be a weaker federal standard. Apparently the Trump Administration is proceeding to revoke the waiver as a publicity stunt since it can’t find the scientific or economic data to support revoking the current standards (which are the CARB standards).

  20. DonC Says:

    “Honestly I think Trump is just trying to keep the regulatory requirements kept to the EPA and the same for the whole country, which I agree with”

    That may be what he is trying to do but the fact is that the law provides otherwise. So if he wants to do that he should go back and get Congress to agree. Not to put too fine a point on this, but what you “agree with” is irrelevant. You simply want to arrogate to yourself the right to make laws. That’s really a job for Congress, and it has already made its decision. It’s not up to the states to “lobby to raise the bar”. They’ve already successfully done that. Time for Trump to lobby to drop the bar.

  21. Kit Gerhart Says:

    18 If NY decided to require all cars to have external air bags, the car companies would probably unanimously agree to quit selling cars in NY, and then NY would back off on the requirement.

    As far as Trump, as WineGeek alluded, he wants to undo everything he can that Obama did. Then, beyond that, he wants to undo other environmental protections enacted over the last 4 decades. Here’s a partial list.

  22. Lambo2015 Says:

    17 It may appear GM is throwing in the towel when it comes to the infotainment system. I tend to believe they were foolish in the first place to try and think they could compete with the smart phone industry.

    So many manufacturers wanted to make their own interface and in car features like navigation. Why because it was money driven. Meanwhile smart phone technology has been leaps and bounds ahead of the auto industry when it comes to voice recognition and software interface.

    Who would pay for a navigation system in a car that was only updated when you took the car back to the dealership and paid a few hundred dollars for the update? Everyone has a better constantly updated addition that can even provide current road conditions and traffic jams live for free on ones phone? Ones phone already contains all your contacts and phone numbers, and most have a large playlist of music.
    Automakers thought people would take the time to load all that same information into their car and use a system that is only as good as the year the car is produced. Meanwhile those that have a 10 year old car with Android auto or Carplay can get a new phone or have the latest update and have the most recent voice recognition software all the time.

    Any manufacturer that thought they could develop those features and they would be better than a constantly changing industry that provides thousands of apps and software for free was foolish and wasted lots of time and money.

    With Car-play or Android auto the car can really be a pretty basic infotainment system. I have my navigation and contacts and calling ability and can even have texts read to me. I have my music or can even stream broadcasts from anywhere in the world. It really wouldn’t even need to have a radio. So good job GM not really throwing in the towel but getting on board with what your customers really want and not what you can sell.

  23. Lambo2015 Says:

    21 Okay so what if Cali decided they wanted the airbags. The point was Cali got CARB and the power to dictate their own requirements because they account for a large percentage of sales. Doesn’t make it right! The regulations to manufacturers should be federal and universal to the country..
    To make the point even more clear we already have to meet different requirements to sell in other countries. What if each country let their providences set additional standards. Where does it end? This has nothing to do with Obama or even what the standards are. Its about making a standard that is universal to the country and getting all manufacturers to agree to it. I don’t care if the EPA or CARB sets the goal but it should be one.

  24. Kit Gerhart Says:

    22 I’ve never experienced android auto or carplay, but for navigation, I just use my phone, have it give voice commands, and never look at it after I set up my destination. I use the phone to stream music, and occasionally an F1 race or other sports event, and I suspect the phone connect systems would make that more convenient.

    I’d probably like android auto, or carplay if I had an iPhone, so maybe it’s good that I haven’t seen them, as I don’t know what I’m missing.

  25. Kit Gerhart Says:

    21 The CARB emission standards are doable, without completely redesigning the car, or whatever it would take to do the air bags. I suspect the car companies would heavily resist that, even if it were California.

    As far as California emissions, that started because urban pollution is a bigger problem in California than in most, or maybe all other places in the US. With today’s technology, the CA standards are easy to meet, though they weren’t at one time.

    As far as different countries, as I’d mentioned before, it would be nice to have common standards between places that generally have high standards, like western Europe, and the US, especially CARB. Then I could buy, say, a manual transmission C-Class wagon with cloth seats, or something like that. There is no way, however, that such standardization will ever happen in any of our lifetimes.

  26. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Will the Renegade PHEV be sold in the US?

  27. joe Says:

    Larry 8

    Speaking of typo’s, is this a huge typo? Tell me.

  28. DonC Says:

    “Okay so what if Cali decided they wanted the airbags. The point was Cali got CARB and the power to dictate their own requirements because they account for a large percentage of sales. Doesn’t make it right!”

    CARB did NOT get the right to set emission standards because of its size. It got the right to set its emission standards because it was doing so for many years BEFORE the creation of the Clean Air Act. Plus the idea that all state laws need to conform to federal standards is contrary to the normal practice. It’s normal for the federal standard to set the floor, leaving the states the freedom to set higher standards if they so desire. So the Clean Air Act is normal. It would be abnormal to prevent states from setting their own standards.

    The Clean Air Act does accommodate auto makers by only allowing two standards. It could have allowed every state to set a standard. The only reason that CARB carries so much weight is that so many other states have chosen to follow its lead, wholly or in part. Also note that currently the federal standard and the CARB standard are the same. The Trump Administration is actually screwing up one standard by trying to change the federal standard. So far that effort has gone nowhere because science and economics don’t support it.

    The car companies get this. They can read the Clean Air Act and they can figure out what the odds of the EPA being successful are. The irony is that Ford spearheaded the effort to get the EPA to change the standard and has now thrown in the towel and signed an agreement to follow the CARB standard.

  29. ChuckGrenci Says:

    Well, since CARB is no longer just a California entity (more of a consortium of states now), perhaps CARB and EPA needs to sit down and present their issues and come to an understanding of unity and get this issue settled (instead of a pissing contest). Perhaps a binding arbitration could be set up and after each side presents their goals a decision can be made and the auto industry can move on. If these ‘clowns’(both sides) were in charge of the liberation of Europe (WWII) they’d still be staged for the invasion waiting for better conditions; sometimes you have to either compromise or take a chance AND MOVE ON!

  30. Larry D. Says:

    11 I must say, if you compare the VW “UP!” with the Fiat 500 or 500 E, the VW wins easily. The Fiat is a retro design that apart from the cuteness factor, is far inferior to the VW in every respect (interior room, range etc) and costs $5k-$8k more in Europe than the VW’s 21k euros.

    Depending on incentives, and also on what I will do with the 2008 E 320 there, I might be interested in buying a BEV “UP!” for the summer home.

    It will easily do the 50-60 mile round trip (half of it in slow traffic) to downtown and have range to spare. On long trips, given the poor supercharging network, I’d use the Merc diesel, which is also intended for long highway trips and is too big for t he narrow downtown streets.

    I have old friends who own an “UP!” along with a Golf, both gas versions. The “UP!” is an efficient, intelligent design that has plenty of room for 4 passengers and is ideal to parallel park downtown when they go shopping, much shorter than the Golf.

  31. Kit Gerhart Says:

    30 I didn’t compare the UP! with the 500, except to say that they are about the same size, too small to sell well in the US, whether electric or gas.

  32. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I found that there is no diesel up! It appears that the scandal is changing things, even more than I realized. A few years ago, every car sold in Europe, except for a few sports cars would have been available with diesels.

  33. Lambo2015 Says:

    28 Don I wasn’t saying states don’t have the right to pass laws that go above and beyond the federal requirements anyone who’s graduated HS knows that. I was saying it makes it difficult for the manufacturers and in the end cost us all more money. Ideally their would be a global requirement for emissions safety and mpg then all vehicles could be sold anywhere with only differences being RH or LH drive. So if Trump or Obama or whoever is next pushes for a singular standard within the US. That’s a good thing and I think you misunderstood my suppport for this as support for trump with your response. You seem like a very angry Democrat that is willing to attack others opinion simply because it currently happens to be Trump pushing for it. Honestly I could care less who it just makes sense. And your right what I agree with is irrelevant but then I guess everyone opinion here is irrelevant and then why post at all.

  34. Kit Gerhart Says:

    33 It would be nice to have global standards, or even common standards in the US, but it is unlikely to happen. Trump wants to lead a race to the bottom on almost everything with the environment. The Dems want the opposite, in some cases beyond what might be reasonable. Then, the Europeans have their own ideas in some areas, like pedestrian safety, that has barely been discussed in the US, at least regarding design of cars.

  35. Larry D. Says:

    A few days ago I drove by the bank and saw a totally forgettable silver “Bentley” bentyaga SUV or crossover. It looked small and insignificant compared to any Bentley Sedan I have ever seen. No presence. Pathetic, really. A Cayenne-sized breadvan that looked smaller than a Q7. I cannot believe so many fools paid the $200-300k to buy this thing.

    At the Dept. Parking lot I saw a 2nd gen Cruze in bright blue metallic. I was not sure if it was a Cruze or a Volt 2.0 until I saw the name in the trunklid. It looked sleek, good exterior design, but the Volt looks identical. If I pay twice the price of the Cruze for the VOlt, I want it to look different, and more upscale.

    The 1st gen VOlt looked different than the 1st Cruze, but in a nerdy way. And the interior was really not that good in the Volt.

  36. Kit Gerhart Says:

    35 The 1st gen Volt had lots of flat plastic on the dash, with buttons that didn’t show up very well. I drove a 2nd gen, and it drove pretty well, but I don’t remember much about the interior, so nothing must have stood out, good or bad. The 2nd gen Volt is a hatch that looks a lot like a Cruze sedan, rather than like a Cruze hatch.

    The Bentley CUV is pretty much a Q7, at 4-5X the price, but with a bigger engine. I think they put the W12 in it. The Cayenne is a little shorter than the Q7. I guess that makes it sportier. They dropped the VW version, Touareg, at least in the US market.

  37. Larry D. Says:

    In May 2007 I was in Brussels for a 2 day conference and on my way to amsterdam and Warsaw for the rest of the week, stayed with an old friend and HS classmate who was the Ambassador to Belgium in their nice 4,000 sqft apartment in a very nice neighborhood near some monastery (in Brussels), he had a Touareg with gas (as a diplomat however they paid only 1/3rd the price, maybe they did not pay the hefty gas tax). The interior of the Touareg was very upscale, no less luxurious than an X5, plenty of good wood and leather and roomy. We drove to Bruges on a Sunday morning and had lunch outdoors.

  38. Larry D. Says:

    I checked the resale value of my 2007 E 320 Bluetec and got 14 cars US-wide, the ones with my kind of miles were around $8-9K, so in three years it only depreciated by $2k, but this one was interesting (link above), 305,000 miles, $6,000, and claims it is a “Great Deal” (ie a big bargain).

    So it may make sense to get the diesel model even in the US where diesel is more (and not much less) expensive than gas, usually.

  39. Kit Gerhart Says:

    38 That doesn’t sound like such a great deal, 300K miles and a bad transmission. I’d check out the other 13. I think I’d rather have the diesel in one that old, before the urea stuff, and other extra complexity in newer diesels.

  40. Larry D. Says:

    39 Yes, I saw the transmission thing after I posted it. And it should be even less since it is not sold by a dealer but by the owner. The car has a “panoramic roof’ vs the standard excellent sunroof-moonroof mine has, don’t know if this makes any diff.

  41. Larry D. Says:

    UK sales (a major Euro market still), Model 3 was no. 3 best Selling Car in August 19

  42. Larry D. Says:

    Saw some Dvds over the weekend, incl one I saw before, a 1983 movie, mention it for the cars shown.

    The lead actor was driving a Beetle, whose windshield was really flat, terrible aerodynamics, while its rear window was nicely curved.

    A supposed Rich Guy in the movie had a mansion with an imposing two-tone Rolls Silver Cloud (1965 or before) and driver, but also a black Caddy of some kind next to it. I doubt any movie after 1999 would have a Caddy as a rich guy’s car… I think I also saw a Maserati Quattroporte looking car (looked much bigger than the tiny Biturbo).

  43. Kit Gerhart Says:

    42 Beetles had truly flat windshields until 1965, when all of the windows got bigger, and the windshield had a slight curve, I think about 3/4 inch over its width. I remember that Beetle trivia, because those were the big changes for the ’65 Beetle my parents had.

  44. ChuckGrenci Says:

    Cadillacs were in the two National Treasures movies and also is the vehicle of Jason Bull on “Bull” (tv series). The word ‘Cadillac’ still carries some panache even if the vehicles have lost some of their luster.

  45. Kit Gerhart Says:

    44 My favorite Cadillac that I’ve seen three or four times, is one Cole Porter used in Paris in the the later part of his career. It’s a custom built black Fleetwood, and is in the Miami County Historical Museum in Peru, Indiana.

  46. Larry D. Says:

    44 I doubt they were sedans. There are plenty of Escalades, but these usually belong to pimps and drug dealers and rap ‘artists’, who usually have some murders on their rap sheet. Not much “panache” in these circles!

  47. Larry D. Says:

    45 I liked the styling of the 60s and early 70s caddys (exterior styling), after they got rid of the fins.

    On a different car topic, I also saw Clint Eastwood’s latest movie on library DVD, called “Mule”, based on true story of a 90 year old used as a mule to carry drugs from Mexico to Chicago. Originally the lead actor, played also by Eastood who directed the movie, drove a beat-up Ford truck, and after he made a ton of $ bought a black Lincoln Blackwood. probably used, depending when the actual events took place.