Exactly. Nothing good will come out of this for Canada. China will exploit and cheat anyway they can. Always have and always will.

I think the worst offender was the "in-cab" mounted fuel tanks of pickup trucks of that era..my Dad has a 1975 F250 Hi-Boy 4x4 and the tank was right behind the seat in the regular cab configured truck....heard the gas sloshing around too.....crazy. Of course, GM had to contend with all the bad press of the "saddle mounted" gas tanks in their pickup trucks of the era that seemingly exploded when the crosswind was too hard....that is according to the news outlets of the era....

All of the factors listed as proof that Ford was negligent fall apart when one realizes they could apply to many other small cars of that era. (And Ford didn't use a drop-in gas tank design for the Pinto. The Pinto did not use that design, in which the top of the gas tank doubled as the floor of the trunk. The Falcons and Mustangs of the 1960s did use that design. Note that Toyota also used that design for the Corona that was sold here in the early 1970s.)   In the Grimshaw case, the defense claimed that the 1963 Galaxie that slammed into the stalled Pinto was traveling at 50 mph at the time of the impact. (In the Grimshaw case, the Pinto had stalled out on the freeway. The driver couldn't get the car restarted before a 1963 Galaxie slammed into it.)   The plaintiffs claimed the Galaxie was traveling at 30 mph. There was proof to support the defense's assertion, but the trial judge accepted the plaintiff's version of events. Interestingly, during arguments, the plaintiffs agreed that no contemporary small car could be expected to survive a direct hit at 50+ mph from a much larger vehicle. Which brings us to the Ulrich case...   In that case, the driver stopped the Pinto in the middle of the lane because she realized that she had left the gas cap back at the gas station. (The road lacked a shoulder.) She had just filled up the Pinto. The driver of a Chevrolet van traveling at about 60 mph failed to see the stopped Pinto, because he was reaching to pick up a cigarette - some say it was a marijuana joint - he had dropped on the floor. He thus didn't brake before striking the Pinto. No contemporary small car could have survived an impact at that speed by a much larger vehicle, particularly with a full tank of gas and the gas cap not installed.   There is no Ford Pinto memo. The memo in question dealt with a proposed federal rollover standard, and it applied to ALL vehicles. Ford was using a cost-benefit analysis approved by the federal government. This is why the memo was not admitted as evidence during the Grimshaw trial - it did not specifically refer to the Pinto. Mother Jones claimed that weighing costs against potential fatalities showed how callous auto makers were towards their customers. The problem with that claim is that Ford, and other automakers, were using a formula used by...federal regulatory agencies. A cost-benefit analysis is a standard part of the regulatory procedure.   The Pinto's overall safety record (meaning, fatalities from ALL crashes, not just those involving fire) was actually better than many contemporary small cars. It's hard to sift out only fire-related fatalities (as that would include fatalities from, say, a fire that started in the engine compartment), but most data shows that the Pinto was a little worse than average in that regard (again, compared to contemporary small cars). One set of data shows that the worst offender was actually the AMC Gremlin. I remember riding in my parents' 1973 Gremlin and hearing the gasoline slosh in the tank during even moderate turns. That was hardly comforting as the Pinto news story broke in 1978. 

The same concerns were voiced when Gen 10 (97-04) models were debuted...radically styled and did not look like any previous truck....   Ford has been down this road before....that is why they lead in trucks. 

That's not a totally clear picture either, because Ford's EV sales, for example, were up for the year, and jumped right before the credits expired, however took a massive nosedive once the credits went away.  As did EV sales from most brands.   I'm sure EV sales for 2026 will be down significantly vs. 2025, but may stabilize after that......the question will be more clearly answered once we get true "no credit" quarter comparisons.

I wasn't alive lol.   They're selling 800k+ F-series - does it need to be "right sized" or do they risk handing sales to competitors that stay at the same size?

But the issue was the small vehicles from the EU didn’t translate well to other markets. Let’s say they are gold plated to a point.    I can go back 46 years ago to give an example-it cost something like $300 bucks to fix an carb issue on my dads fiesta back in the early 1980s-that is like $1000 today.    The C2 platform itself has been an issue-the last gen Escape decontenting and pricing issues with it   The other EU platforms used in the Fusion-it seems like the older Mazda derived platforms in the Escape and Fusion where better and more in line with the tastes of the North American market at a reasonable price point.    I guess this has been sorted to a point with the introduction of the Bronco Sport and Maverick, they also command a higher price point then the Escape did too. 

One quarter ain’t enough to infer trends. How did those three companies’ EV sales do in calendar year 2025 compared to the previous year?

Europe had tariffs on US products up to 17% while we had none on their exports.  Japan and China limit US imports.  Demanding fair trade terms is not bullying.

Same as it did when the F-Series was redesigned from Gen 6 (73-79) to Gen 7 (80-86). it was first time F-Series was downsized (or, rightsized if you will) and the market responded positively to it.