Fiber Broadband Association Marks Industry Investment in U.S. Manufacturing
"The fiber broadband industry creates thousands of jobs and contributes billions of dollars to the American economy. The BEAD program has catalyzed FBA members to onshore fiber manufacturing investment and jobs. The continuation of BEAD funding is critical for closing the digital divide, preserving good jobs, stimulating the economy, and maintaining American leadership," said Marissa Mitrovich, Vice President of Public Policy, Fiber Broadband Association.
The Buy America Preference applies to BEAD funded infrastructure projects. In a February 2024 Notice of Final Waiver, the Department of Commerce (DOC) issued a limited waiver for certain construction materials and manufactured products used in BEAD funded projects. For instance, DOC found that all optic glass used in manufacturing fiber and fiber optic cable must be BABA compliant, although it provided a waiver for non-optic-glass inputs to the optical fiber pre-form process, and that key fiber transmission electronics needed to be manufactured in the U.S., although it waived the 55 percent cost of components requirement needed. The BEAD BABA Waiver is available at https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/BABA%20Waiver%20Signed.pdf.
'The amount of time, effort, commitment, and training required to bring these jobs back to the U.S. cannot be understated, nor should the value these jobs and facilities are having on the communities that will benefit from this new capacity,' said Anis Khemakhem, Chief Marketing Officer, Clearfield. 'The BABA commitment reaches every level of the companies involved, permeating the supply chain and demanding focused organizational alignment. The investment spans from soft costs, such as training, to hard costs, such as product tooling.'
Stay updated by subscribing to the Fiber Broadband Association's weekly newsletter here.
About the Fiber Broadband Association
The Fiber Broadband Association is the largest and only trade association that represents the complete fiber ecosystem of service providers, manufacturers, industry experts, and deployment specialists dedicated to the advancement of fiber broadband deployment and the pursuit of a world where communications are limitless, advancing quality of life and digital equity anywhere and everywhere. The Fiber Broadband Association helps providers, communities, and policy makers make informed decisions about how, where, and why to build better fiber broadband networks. Since 2001, these companies, organizations, and members have worked with communities and consumers in mind to build the critical infrastructure that provides the economic and societal benefits that only fiber can deliver. The Fiber Broadband Association is part of the Fibre Council Global Alliance, which is a platform of six global FTTH Councils in North America, LATAM, Europe, MEA, APAC, and South Africa. Learn more at fiberbroadband.org.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
"This government is anti-union and anti-worker": CUPE NS Denounces Use of Bill 107
HALIFAX, Nova Scotia, August 16, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--CUPE Nova Scotia strongly condemns the federal government's decision to interfere in workers' right to collective bargaining and job action by invoking Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. "Clearly, this government is anti-union and anti-worker," said Alan Linkletter, CUPE Nova Scotia President. "Forcing workers back on the job instead of supporting free and fair collective negotiations directly contradictions workers' rights that are guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Air Canada has asked the government to crush striking workers' Charter rights, and Federal Labour minister Patty Hajdu is ready to deliver. Hajdu announced that the federal government will be invoking Section 107 at a press conference this afternoon, citing the financial welfare of Canadians and the economy at large as a deciding factor for this decision. "She says this move is for the financial security of Canadians—are these workers not Canadians? Does their welfare not matter? How can you be financially secure when you don't even get paid for all of the hours you work?" Contrary to the Minister's remarks, this will not ensure labour peace in Canada. This will only push this fight onto the next group of workers in negotiations, while Air Canda's flight attendants continue to work for a billion-dollar company for free. Flight attendants are only paid when the plane is moving, and work as many as 35 unpaid hours a month performing vital duties that ensure the safe and smooth operation of each flight. Now, instead of paying flight attendants for all the hours they work, Air Canada has clearly sought help from the federal government to continue exploiting their employees. "Minister Hajdu's comments indicate a clear lack of respect for workers' rights," said Sherry Hillier, President of CUPE Newfoundland and Labrador and National General Vice President for Atlantic Canada. "By using Section 107 to force workers back on the job yet again, they're setting a pattern. And that pattern is that Liberals don't care about Canadians." Recent polling data indicates that 9 out of 10 Canadians support Air Canada flight attendants' fight for fair pay. 88% per cent of Canadians believe flight attendants should be paid for all work-related duties including boarding, delays, and safety checks. 76% support raising their pay to reflect the important safety role they play. 59% believe the federal government should respect flight attendants' right to take job action–even if it causes travel disruptions. CUPE represents over 10,000 Air Canada flight attendants across the country, and workers have been demonstrating at Halifax Stanfield International Airport since 6AM. "Messages of support have been pouring in for these workers from across the country," continued Linkletter. "Canadians stand with us. Our elected representatives should, too." View source version on Contacts Sherry HillierPresident, CUPE Newfoundland & LabradorNational General Vice President, CUPE Atlantic and Maritimes regions709-765-2996 Alan LinkletterPresident, CUPE Nova Scotiapresident@ Taylor JohnstonCUPE Atlantic Communications Representativetjohnston@ Haseena ManekCUPE Atlantic Communications Representativehmanek@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Amid bitter partisanship, permitting reform is a golden opportunity for bipartisanship
With states now fighting over redistricting maps, America's two political parties will need an opportunity to work together again. Permitting reform is one issue that is just right for this, even amidst an apparent trifecta. Strengthening American energy production has long been a bipartisan issue, as it fosters economic growth, protects national security, and increases the energy supply to drive down or stabilize utility costs for U.S. households in the face of growing demand. There has never been a better time for it. Done right, it secures American global leadership for another century. While recent debates around tax credits have made this issue seem increasingly partisan, reforming our existing energy permitting process is something on which lawmakers on both sides of the aisle largely already agree. Congress should capitalize on consensus to pass comprehensive permitting reform legislation. Debates surrounding energy tax credits in the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, in particular, brought energy production back into the spotlight this year. Reconciliation can leave bitter feelings, but permitting reform has a chance to offer both parties something they dearly want — energy dominance, reduced emissions, fewer arcane rules, and less back and forth political games undermining the development of new energy projects. All energy production would benefit from permitting reform. America's permitting system should be a gateway for energy projects. Right now, it's a bottleneck. Unpredictable processes and delays in approval are bringing new developments to a grinding halt. With the rise of AI and a digital world that increasingly relies on data centers, global energy demand has spiked. Congress is now tasked with ensuring that American energy production can keep pace with this demand and not fall behind foreign adversaries vying for our position as the global leader in innovation and technology. But as of late, lawmakers have remained stagnant on addressing permitting reform. Yet, while demand for all energy production is on the rise, Democrats have a lot less to fear from loosening rules than they may think. The vast majority of projects stuck in grid connection queues are renewable — over 95 percent of proposed new generation capacity is solar or wind. Much-needed reform to the approval process could free up all new projects, strengthen American energy dominance and unleash clean energy all at once. Permitting reform has long been a bipartisan issue. Last year, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), then-ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and then-Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Joe Manchin ( introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 aimed at streamlining and expediting the approvals process. While this legislation was not ultimately passed, it is a prime example of members reaching across the aisle to drive movement on this front. Most recently, a bipartisan group of governors made an urgent call for permitting reform. 'It shouldn't take longer to approve a project than it takes to build it,' said Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R). He also highlighted the bipartisan nature of the issue, 'Democrats and Republicans alike recognize permitting delays weaken U.S. economic growth, security and competitiveness. Governors from both parties are working together to inject some common sense into our permitting process.' Voters in both parties agree. Recent polling conducted by Cygnal found that two-thirds of respondents agree that Congress should modernize permitting rules to accelerate completion of energy projects and reduce long-term cost pressures. Some conservative stalwarts will never support anything they see as helping clean energy, while some environmental activists are more concerned with punishing fossil fuel companies than they are with actually addressing climate change. These short-sighted visions represent the horseshoe of scarcity, decline and pessimism that has plagued American energy politics for decades. They believe we can succeed only by taking from the other side. America cannot afford delay. A dangerous world requires energy dominance in all industries, including new ones like clean energy. Moreover, Americans deserve to know that they will have reliable, accessible energy needed to power their businesses and residences. Permitting reform will make energy access more reliable, more abundant, cheaper and much cleaner. All Americans, and our planet, will win. The only losers will be those profiteering from political polarization. With some energy tax credits phasing out sooner than originally planned, many energy producers want to act swiftly to get new projects up and running. The permitting process, as it stands, is their biggest obstacle. As we head into the fall, our lawmakers should keep the cross-partisan opportunity on permitting reform top of mind. Liam deClive-Lowe is the co-founder of American Policy Ventures, an organization that builds projects to help policymakers collaborate and get things done.
Car and Driver
22 minutes ago
- Car and Driver
Unfair Fight? 2002 Subaru Impreza WRX vs. Audi S4 Quattro and BMW 330xi
From the October 2001 issue of Car and Driver. The Law of Diminishing Returns: A yield rate that, after a certain point, fails to increase proportionately to additional outlays of capital or investments of time and labor.* *American Heritage Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992. Relax, we're not about to launch into a sleep-inducing lecture on money supply, interest rates, and the effects of Alan Greenspan's bedtime rituals on the Gross Domestic Product. The definition is for those of you who are wondering how we could even think of comparing a car costing $25,000 with two that each cost 60 percent more. The question here is: If you spend that extra 60 percent—40 thousand bucks in all—do you get a car that is 60 percent better? In the 40-grand corner we have the Audi S4 Quattro and the BMW 330xi. In the other corner—actually, down in the bargain basement—lurks our underdog, the $24,520 samurai challenger, the Subaru Impreza WRX. Unfair comparison, you say? Duuuh! But wait—check the spec sheets. All three cars have full-time four-wheel drive, four doors, manual transmissions, engines with 225 or more horsepower, and interior and exterior dimensions that come within inches of one another. View Photos JEFFREY G. RUSSELL | Car and Driver Our glowing reviews of the WRX suggest it's a worthy opponent to two of our favorite sporting sedans. The snorty little Subaru sedan has rocked the sporting establishment by producing a remarkable combination of performance and character for the price. We only decided to send it to the wolves after we looked at other similarly priced sedans and realized that matching them against the WRX wouldn't be a comparo, it'd be a slaughter. So we called in the German sharks. Both the Audi and the Bimmer have been frequent honorees on our 10Best list (10 straight years for the 3-series and three years for the S4's less-powerful sibling, the A4). Audi's S4 is a pumped-up, twin-turbocharged version of the A4 and has the added distinction of being the first and only car to outperform the previous-generation M3 in a comparison test. While the M3 has moved up in price—to $46,000—and in performance, BMW has also upped the performance of the entire 3-series line. The model representing a step down from the new M3 is the 330i, offered in both two- and four-door bodies and available with a $1750 four-wheel-drive system that changes the model designation to 330xi. Ask any one of us to pick our favorite cars, and these three would be high on our list. View Photos JEFFREY G. RUSSELL | Car and Driver If you're thinking we've put ourselves in the unenviable position of having to choose a favorite child in this test, you would be right. We put the three through our usual battery of performance tests, lapped DaimlerChrysler's 1.7-mile road course, and tore up the curvy roads of northwestern Pennsylvania—a fitting locale since the discovery and eventual refinement of oil in these hills made fortunes for many and changed the country's path nearly 150 years ago. And, of course, without oil we wouldn't be writing this. Many of us have been quick to point out that there's no need to spend more than $25,000 on a car. Do the German cars deliver the goods to justify their major-league prices? Let's find out. 3rd Place: BMW 330xi View Photos JEFFREY G. RUSSELL | Car and Driver Let this comparo remind all the whiners out there that we don't automatically place the trophy in the trunk of the car bearing the whirling propeller badge before the test. In this one, the Bimmer finished last. What gives? Clearly, this BMW wasn't loaded to compete with the two others. Its 225-hp six-cylinder engine is the least powerful of the group, and it's pushing around the second-heaviest weight. At the drag strip, it lost the sprint to 60 and through the quarter-mile. Still, we love its engine. Neither of the other cars can match the throttle response of the Bimmer's six, which doesn't bear the burden of spooling up turbos. Comments such as "power oozes out in silky-smooth pulses" and "very smooth and strong and makes the best noise" filled the BMW's logbook. HIGHS: Supple ride, slick transmission, graceful moves, silky engine. LOWS: Flat seats, few features for a $40,000 car, underwhelming grip, revs too high on the highway. VERDICT: We expect more from a BMW, especially a $40,000 one. View Photos JEFFREY G. RUSSELL | Car and Driver View Photos JEFFREY G. RUSSELL | Car and Driver We also thought the five-speed was the best-shifting box of the bunch, with low effort and Teflon-coated detents. The transmission routes power to a planetary center differential that under no-slip conditions supplies the rear axle with 62 percent of the torque. Should one wheel slip, the electronic traction control of the Bimmer's Dynamic Stability Control system routes the power to the wheels with grip. The rearward torque bias preserves the rear-drive handling we've come to appreciate in BMWs, but sadly, BMW doesn't offer on four-wheel-drivers the optional stiffer suspension and larger wheels and tires of the 3-series Sport package. The setup of the base model is softly tuned and has weak tires. "Definitely the Cadillac of the group," complained one tester. The Cadillac of the group? A BMW? It was also the quietest. We're not above appreciating a good-riding car, but unfortunately for the BMW, neither of the other cars was unduly harsh, so the BMW came across as somewhat floppy. View Photos JEFFREY G. RUSSELL | Car and Driver And then there are the tires, which squeal at even modest cornering speeds. The tires and the soft suspension conspire to hurt the BMW in every test of grip. The Bimmer finished the poorest on the skidpad and in the lane-change maneuver. On the road course, the 330xi rolled in the turns and the tires howled in protest, limiting cornering speeds and putting it 3.4 seconds behind the Audi and 1.8 seconds back of the Subaru. BMW has heard complaints that the base 3-series is too soft and in response has made the Sport suspension—but not the tires—standard on all 3-series produced after last March. That change was too late for this roundup, and any egg that appeared on the BMW's grille from its performance on the road course quickly flew off when we hit the back roads. The soft suspension displayed a fluidity we hadn't anticipated after those disappointing track laps. We still don't endorse the trend to light steering, but the brakes had the best feel of the bunch, with a firm pedal and perfect linear action. If you're still incredulous over the BMW's third-place finish, consider the features content of the Bavarian car, which at nearly 40 large as tested came with lousy, nearly flat seats that are covered in "leatherette." Sounds like a covering better suited to a $25,000 car, doesn't it? 2nd Place: Subaru WRX View Photos JEFFREY G. RUSSELL | Car and Driver We're still arguing the Subaru's second-place finish. Two of the three voters put the Subaru in first place, with the Audi second. But one—and he'll remain nameless—put the Audi first and the Subaru last, so when we averaged the scores, the Subaru missed the top spot by just one point. So what's missing in the $25,000 car? Actually, it's not what's missing, it's what's there, and in the case of the Subaru, there's a lot of extra noise. The Subaru's sound levels were the loudest during all our decibel tests. The WRX does not qualify as a loud car compared with others in its price class, but it becomes one when the competition gets very expensive. Poke around the Subie's exterior and interior panels, and you see how the noise trickles through to the inside of the car. There's only a paper-thin mat on the trunk bottom and no covering for the underside of the trunklid or hood—items both the BMW and Audi have. HIGHS: Killer value, seats, handling, and turbo 00mph. LOWS: Freeway hum. VERDICT: If you can find a better $24,520 car, buy it. View Photos JEFFREY G. RUSSELL | Car and Driver So the Subaru has less sound-deadening material. The major parts of the interior—the sharp-looking metallic-ringed gauges, the Momo steering wheel, the center console— are all impressive, but the WRX's remaining plastic trim is much flimsier than that in the pricey cars, particularly the handsome Audi. The plus side to the frugal use of sound-deadening material is the WRX's light weight. The Subaru weighs 433 pounds less than the BMW and is 560 pounds lighter than the porky Audi. That said, two of the test drivers weren't annoyed at all by the noise levels. All of us loved the wonderfully designed and supportive cloth seats, the favorite chairs of the group. We also liked the Subaru's in-dash CD changer and cassette player, a combination unique in this zooty group. The Subaru also has no power seats, no stability control, no automatic climate control, and no sunroof. That nose-dived its features rating, but to us, many of those goodies fall under the "nice to have but you don't need them" category. View Photos JEFFREY G. RUSSELL | Car and Driver The rest of the car is pure joy. There's a touch more turbo lag than in the Audi, but we could get a better launch in the Subaru, which gave it a slight edge in the low-speed-acceleration tests. The trick is to do the unthinkable in a four-wheel-drive car: Hold the revs at five grand, and drop the clutch. The WRX's full-time four-wheel-drive system uses a viscous limited-slip center differential that routes power equally to the front and rear axles. The clutch drop breaks the tires loose for only an instant, and then the WRX leaps off the line, scooting to 60 mph in 5.4 seconds and through the quarter in 14.1 seconds at 96 mph—both the best of the bunch. Turbo lag, however, rears its head in the top-gear tests where the Subaru trails from 30 to 50 mph. Keep the engine rpm north of 3000, however, and you won't notice the lag. We also found the Subaru to be the most neutral-handling of the group. Midcorner throttle lifts cause the rear end to slide just enough to tighten your line without provoking fears of a major spin. "Subaru got the big stuff right—the motor, transmission, seats, and handling," wrote one tester in the logbook. That sums up how we feel about this car. One can only marvel at what Subaru could do with another 15 grand. 1st Place: Audi S4 Quattro View Photos JEFFREY G. RUSSELL | Car and Driver So, you say there's no mystery to the Audi's win. Why wouldn't the most expensive car in the test win? Its as-tested price is $1659 above the BMW's and a universe beyond the Subaru's sticker—exactly $16,262 more. Likewise, you get a ton of stuff—power, torque, valves, features, gears, grip, and pounds in this contest. But you don't get the quickest sprinter to 60 mph. Owing to its greater girth and tires that refuse to break loose at the moment of launch despite our best efforts, the Audi trailed the Subaru to 60 mph by a smidge, 0.1 second. By 100 mph, however, the Audi had picked up enough steam to be a half-second ahead of the two other cars, and it continued to widen the gap to its governed 142-mph top speed. But the Audi is the king of every other performance contest, posting significantly better numbers on the skidpad (Audi, 0.86 g; Subaru, 0.82 g; BMW, 0.78 g), through the lane change (67.8 mph versus 66.5 for the Subaru and 63.1 for the BMW), and around the road course, where it was nearly two seconds a lap quicker than the second-place finisher, the Subaru. HIGHS: First-class cabin appointments, potent turbo mill, tenacious chassis. LOWS: Touchy brakes, rubbery shifter. VERDICT: Feels like a $40,000 car. View Photos JEFFREY G. RUSSELL | Car and Driver The Audi is the amusement ride of this group—sit down, buckle up, and hit the button. It's the easiest to drive of the trio, with benign handling and nearly telepathic steering. "The most enjoyable and secure car to drive fast. The rubber really bites in the corners, and the engine pumps power like a fire hose," said one test driver. Which brings us to the wonderful twin-turbocharged 30-valve V-6 engine. There's noticeably less turbo lag in the Audi than in the Subaru. The S4's engine enjoys a considerable displacement edge over the Subaru, so it feels more powerful off-boost. Plus, it runs less boost pressure (10.2 versus 14.2) and employs two blowers, which spool up faster than the Subie's single unit. Unfortunately, the six-speed's action is best described as rubbery. The gearbox routes power to a four-wheel-drive system that uses a Torsen limited-slip center differential to send power to the axle with the most grip, so the traction control only has to limit slip from side to side. Like all the systems here, it's transparent under normal driving conditions. View Photos JEFFREY G. RUSSELL | Car and Driver In addition to the shifter, the powerful brakes drew disparaging comments as well, despite their ability to stop the car from 70 mph in only 164 feet. "There's lots of pedal to push through before the brakes retard, and then the binders are way too touchy," mused one tester. Yet those two niggles did not alter our appreciation of this car's great versatility. Not only is it swift, it's also plush and very serene on the highway. It's easy to drive fast, yet as comfy as a La-Z-Boy. And no one can dispute the attractiveness and quality of the Audi's interior—its subdued hues and materials would fit nicely in a car costing twice as much. And as much as we liked the S4 model, it still came achingly close to being beaten by a car that is hugely less expensive. Perhaps it's not right to say that the S4 is 60 percent better than the WRX. Maybe the best way to put it is that in this test, our collective minds simply liked the S4 60 percent more. Car and Driver Specifications Specifications 2001 Audi S4 Vehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan PRICE Base/As Tested: $40,782/$39,534 ENGINE twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 30-valve V-6, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injection Displacement: 163 in3, 2671 cm3 Power: 250 hp @ 5800 rpm Torque: 258 lb-ft @ 1850 rpm TRANSMISSION 6-speed manual CHASSIS Suspension, F/R: multilink/multilimk Brakes, F/R: vented disc/vented disc Tires: Pirelli P6000 225/45YR-17 DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 102.6 in Length: 176.7 in Width: 72.7 in Height: 54.9 in Curb Weight: 3652 lb C/D TEST RESULTS 60 mph: 5.5 sec 1/4-Mile: 14.2 sec @ 97 mph 100 mph: 15.0 sec 120 mph: 23.1 sec Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.6 sec Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 8.7 sec Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 7.4 sec Top Speed (gov ltd): 142 mph Braking, 70–0 mph: 164 ft Roadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.86 g C/D FUEL ECONOMY 950-Mile Trip: 21 mpg EPA FUEL ECONOMY City/Highway: 17/24 mpg -- 2001 BMW 330xi Vehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan PRICE Base/As Tested: $36,385/$39,123 ENGINE DOHC 24-valve inline-6, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection Displacement: 182 in3, 2979 cm3 Power: 225 hp @ 5900 rpm Torque: 214 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm TRANSMISSION 5-speed manual CHASSIS Suspension, F/R: struts/multilink Brakes, F/R: vented disc/vented disc Tires: Continental ContiTouring Contact DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 107.3 in Length: 176.0 in Width: 68.5 in Height: 56.5 in Curb Weight: 3525 lb C/D TEST RESULTS 60 mph: 5.7 sec 1/4-Mile: 14.4 sec @ 96 mph 100 mph: 15.5 sec 120 mph: 25.2 sec Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.6 sec Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 8.3 sec Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 8.2 sec Top Speed (gov ltd): 129 mph Braking, 70–0 mph: 175 ft Roadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.78 g C/D FUEL ECONOMY 950-Mile Trip: 24 mpg EPA FUEL ECONOMY City/Highway: 20/27 mpg -- 2002 Subaru Impreza WRX Vehicle Type: front-engine, all-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan PRICE Base/As Tested: $24,520/$24,520 ENGINE turbocharged and intercooled flat-4, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection Displacement: 122 in3, 1994 cm3 Power: 227 hp @ 6000 rpm Torque: 217 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm TRANSMISSION 5-speed manual CHASSIS Suspension, F/R: struts/struts Brakes, F/R: vented disc/disc Tires: Bridgestone Potenza RE92 205/55VR-16 DIMENSIONS Wheelbase: 99.4 in Length: 173.4 in Width: 68.1 in Height: 56.7 in Curb Weight: 3092 lb C/D TEST RESULTS 60 mph: 5.4 sec 1/4-Mile: 14.1 sec @ 96 mph 100 mph: 15.5 sec 120 mph: 25.2 sec Rolling Start, 5–60 mph: 6.6 sec Top Gear, 30–50 mph: 14.2 sec Top Gear, 50–70 mph: 10.0 sec Top Speed: 142 mph Braking, 70–0 mph: 181 ft Roadholding, 300-ft Skidpad: 0.82 g C/D FUEL ECONOMY 950-Mile Trip: 23 mpg EPA FUEL ECONOMY City/Highway: 20/27 mpg C/D TESTING EXPLAINED
