Bye Bye To The American V-8... [Archive]

70 copo

05-19-2009, 01:59 PM

Not political.... multiple phases in how we got to this point the most recent being to re-regulate the domestic car companies nearly to the point where the brand that they sell (V-8 power) is demonized to where some people are afraid to be seen buying a truck or an SUV.

"All to save the planet" Fact is I have frost on my roof this morning and we are a week from JUNE.... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

My Point being is that If I have the money to buy a V-8 and a manufacturer is willing to build it - I should be able to buy it. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hmmm.gif

We already did this two-step in the mid 1970's, and early 80's. Wow I recall just how great that 165HP 350 was in the Vette and Camaro in 1975 and 1976.....

Cliff ahead.... brace for impact.

Gonna be great for future collector car values... that is the only upside I see. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

70 copo

05-19-2009, 05:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Then quit watching BSNBC. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the story "fair and Balanced"

Looks like everybody is on board http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/worship.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/worship.gif

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/18/obama-auto-plan-links-auto-emissions-mileage-standards/

2011 could be the new "1970" for muscle cars.... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

ORIGLS6

05-19-2009, 05:15 PM

"President Obama plans to propose the first-ever national emission limits for cars and trucks as well as average mileage requirements of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 -- all costing consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle. "

More "CHANGE". http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gif

beater68427

05-19-2009, 05:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"President Obama plans to propose the first-ever national emission limits for cars and trucks as well as average mileage requirements of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 -- all costing consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle. "

More "CHANGE". http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

What a joke, I think he has forgotten about the road tax on fuel http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif so if he could ever get this to pass he would realize a great shortage of funds, well I guess not he would just raise the tax on it, oh I forgot he is not going to raise any taxes.... second for a look on pollution why do they not increase emissions for maufacturing, my business sits in the middle of refineries, I have Chevron Sinclair Phillips and some independents, they do burn off's every night have for 30 years i'm aware of, its done at night to keep complaints down, you should see it huge black clouds coming out of the stacks for hours, I wonder how thats effecting versus normal day to day traffic http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

StealthBird

05-19-2009, 08:04 PM

You see, if you think like a Liberal, or a global warming alarmist, having frost on your lawn in May is due to global warming. Record high temp in January? Global warming. Record low temp in January? Global warming. Too many tornadoes? Global warming. No tornadoes? Global warming. Ice caps melting? Global warming. Ice caps getting thicker? Global warming. Hurricane Katrina? Global warming. No hurricanes the following year? Global warming. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

This new proclamation from King Barack is disturbing, because states are hurting for funding right now, and you know what's next. They will begin to target older cars to get them off the road, and all states will adopt California emmissions standards in order to get people go out and buy the new clean, fuel efficient cars.

John Brown

05-19-2009, 08:38 PM

I sure am glad my pos full size 85 Oldsmobile gets 25 <u>real</u> miles per gallon.

If it ever dies, I'm gonna buy another one. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/flag.gif

70 copo

05-20-2009, 12:21 AM

Here is a guy that gets it....

Michael LaFaive, director of fiscal policy at the Michigan Mackinac Center for Public Policy stated just today:

"The law of unintended consequences is at work always and everywhere, The headline should read 'U.S. to boost the attractiveness of used cars by 2016'."

He went on to state that until the old fleet of vehicles flat-out sputters and dies, consumers could be squeezing every last mile out of their used cars, in turn holding sales of new, fuel-efficient cars to a low level. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

JoeG

05-20-2009, 01:17 AM

Wow --what a great idea----increase the emission standards while the Auto industry is still reeling from lack of sales and bankrupcy--make cars that will be so light unsafe and so small that no one will buy and will most likely turn people to look at foreign auto makers and throw a $1300.00 extra cost per vehicle,which really is a gas tax........Can you say**** HUGO ****.........Man , I hope this is a one term administration........and get back to some sanity....

Chevy454

05-20-2009, 04:22 AM

Isn't this a lot like "stepping over a dollar to pick up a penny"? Irregardless of the fact that the *last* thing the US auto mans need right now are more crazy regulations to attain & eat up all new R&D money...but what about the US consumer? They *estimate* it will only add $1300 to the cost, but last time I checked, folks already think cars are overpriced, so they crank up the price even more?

And I'm afraid to ask how they're gonna make up for the lost revenue from the road tax...!

markinnaples

05-20-2009, 05:44 AM

We all need to contact our representatives and voice our opinions LOUDLY.

Maybe I am a blind optimist, but I believe if they think they will be out of a job next time, they will listen.

Jeff H

05-20-2009, 06:08 AM

My biggest complaint about this idea is that your individual mpg will come down to your own driving environment regardless of 4, 5, 6 or 8 cylinder engine. I've had 4 cyl, V6 and V8 vehicles as daily drivers and with my 10 minute commute with multiple traffic lights and never getting above 45 mph means they all got around 18-20 mpg. You're not going to get 35 mpg with a 4cyl in those driving conditions so it's a stupid idea. Compare my fuel usage to someone who has an hour + commute and that's where you find your wasted energy and increased pollution. Our gov't needs to take a little more time to think some of these things out before just "changing" everything because that's what they said they would do. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsdown.gif

Late BrakeU2

05-20-2009, 06:48 AM

Hot from Shanghai,can I spec a Nickey Phase III upgrade ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY

ORIGLS6

05-20-2009, 08:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
We all need to contact our representatives and voice our opinions LOUDLY.

Maybe I am a blind optimist, but I believe if they think they will be out of a job next time, they will listen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever actually tried to contact one? They're pretty well screened from any 'suggestions' a lowly citizen may offer.

Example: I offered my opinion on Barack Hussein's proposed appointment of an Appeals Court Judge. No reply at all from Dick Durbin, and this 'Beige Response' from the other Idiot that Blago appointed to fill the vacancy that BHO left. (Should have left it vacant!) You think he actually read what I sent? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif

"Thank you very much for contacting my office to express your views. I will take your opinions and concerns into consideration as we debate these issues in the United States Senate and address challenges facing Illinois and the nation.

The constituents of Illinois are of the utmost importance to me, and it is an honor to work on your behalf by representing you in the United States Senate.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, DC office. Again, thank you and I am honored to serve you in the United States Senate.

Sincerely,

Roland W. Burris
United States Senator"

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gif http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gif

442w30

05-20-2009, 08:46 AM

So, Mike, how is this proposal different from any previous CAFE proposal?

The truth is that performance cars are here to stay. To dishonestly (figuratively, mind you) suggest that the world is going to end because of a proposal that is par for the course keeps our minds of the really important stuff, like a status quo in the financial sector that has yet to change, a crumbling auto industry being helped by a bumbling government, and the lack of preparedness our country finds itself in to compete globally against countries that are carrying a lot more weight than they had before. I'm really interested in seeing the future and seeing how things end up. Certainly they can't be any worse than the direction we were headed.

70 copo

05-20-2009, 02:10 PM

We have been there. same policies that gave us the 55MPH Speed limit and 165 HP V8's. Not a future I want.

Performance is how you define it. If you want a smart car with a turbocharger you will like the future alot and you will be in the minority.

Brand loyality shifts have polarized within the auto industry.

IMO... People who buy GM want what GM does best-an American V-8. HP and torque for towing and power for performance.

GM has tried to gain back market segment in cars from the imports for years by trying to be "like an import", while abandoning its core market for car buyers. Discontinuation of the F-body platform in 2002 is a prime example where the cobalt was to compete against the imports and the SSR was a bone thrown to the Camaro buyer.

Wrong on the Cobalt wrong on the SSR. More people left GM and went to other market segments.

Along the way GM finally became self aware and tried to reverse course. Difference is that now GM will be forced to build cars that are aligned with a market segment that they lost a decade ago to Honda and Toyota and I seriously doubt those buyers will be back abesent a rock bottom price.

That is why Fritz Henderson was quoted recently that GM would import cars from china.

So much for "keeping American jobs here in America" and a long list of broken promises to the voter. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsdown.gif

442w30

05-20-2009, 05:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We have been there. same policies that gave us the 55MPH Speed limit and 165 HP V8's. Not a future I want.

[/ QUOTE ]

A speed limit? Petty . . . speed limits are still low in my area.

165 hp? Blame GM for that.

[ QUOTE ]

IMO... People who buy GM want what GM does best-an American V-8. HP and torque for towing and power for performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're speaking of the hobbyist who drives V8s as a hobby.

[ QUOTE ]

GM has tried to gain back market segment in cars from the imports for years by trying to be "like an import", while abandoning its core market for car buyers. Discontinuation of the F-body platform in 2002 is a prime example where the cobalt was to compete against the imports and the SSR was a bone thrown to the Camaro buyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're mistaken about Detroit's marketing. Discontinuing the F-body was arguable. The Cobalt was replacement for the unlamented Cavalier, and merely was Chevy's submission to competing in a class of vehicles. SSR? A niche vehicle.

[ QUOTE ]

Wrong on the Cobalt wrong on the SSR. More people left GM and went to other market segments.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with the Cobalt? Lackluster in comparison to the competition? So whose fault was that?

Ditto with the SSR - lack of hp? Whose fault was that?

[ QUOTE ]

Along the way GM finally became self aware and tried to reverse course. Difference is that now GM will be forced to build cars that are aligned with a market segment that they lost a decade ago to Honda and Toyota and I seriously doubt those buyers will be back abesent a rock bottom price.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may come as a surprise to you, but GM is not self-aware. GM's current situation most certainly has something to do with the economy but, even more so, GM's current situation has a hell of a lot to do with GM. Blaming the government is a convenient way to ignore the problems GM has had . . . but that's par for the course as GM has ignored its problems for years. Ironic, considering they have a portfolio of stellar cars.

Now, against the wall, GM is faced with making compromises in its future. The capitalist in me says to let GM die, but the American in me says we need to help Detroit as much as we can. . . so we have the government to do that. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif

You can't get back to health until you figure out what's causing the symptoms. I hope that GM has figured it out for once. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

Chevy454

05-20-2009, 06:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have been there. same policies that gave us the 55MPH Speed limit and 165 HP V8's. Not a future I want.

[/ QUOTE ]

A speed limit? Petty . . . speed limits are still low in my area.

165 hp? Blame GM for that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I agree with that last part...*all* US sold vehicles in the early/mid '70s got sucker punched by the gas crisis, and even more so by the "not ready for prime time" emissions regulations. You've been under the of those '70s/'80s vehicles Diego, they're like a snake's nest of vacuum hoses & relays & solenoids, and often times the only recourse in getting the thing to run right is to unhook all of that crap...crazy lean jetting & whacked timing settings to get the NOx numbers down, inefficient catalytic converters...the list goes on and on. The problem was that the technology to meet the emissions regs simply wasn't there...so we were left with a "dark ages" of cars in general [not just performance cars]. Might we be in the same boat today, looking down the barrell of even more strict emissions/mpg regulations?

Kim_Howie

05-20-2009, 06:28 PM

The cars built in the US are great cars. My wife drives a Mercury Marinar All wheel drive it gets 32mph it also has a 100,000 mile warranty. It also was made in Kansas City. There is only one over sea owned company that has a 100,000 warranty all the rest are 36,000. The new president said NO new TAXES!!! HUH !!! Cigarettes have gone up 1.62 per pack thats 800.00 a year for me!! Thanks HUSSEIN. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gif

442w30

05-20-2009, 06:32 PM

Rob, I agree, and I apologize for implying it was just GM's fault - certainly the 1970s were a dark period for every manufacturer, and it took everyone a long time to get their junk together. Even with the advent of the 225hp 5.0 Mustang, it was a long time till it was improved upon. Even Ferraris were dogs!

However, today's times are different. We have Corvettes getting high-20s on the highway (with apologies to skip-shift!). Bland sedans like a V6 Accord regularly have acceleration that will rival the bulk of cars from the musclecar era. I think we're currently faced with an evolution of the automobile as personal transportation, but we're experiencing this at a point where we won't experience any dark age in regards to performance.

Plus, remember, CAFE is an aggregate regulation, so halo cars will continue to exist. The demise of the CTS-V, for example, has to do with GM's focus on getting back to health rather than the advent of the dark ages.

I really don't like what's going on between Detroit and Washington - I'm waiting with baited breath - but I'm merely acting as a hedge against those who think it's the end of the world. What would be the end of the world is if Detroit suffers more than it has.

442w30

05-20-2009, 06:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The new president said NO new TAXES!!! HUH !!! Cigarettes have gone up 1.62 per pack thats 800.00 a year for me!! Thanks HUSSEIN. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside of your rhetoric, cig taxes have nothing to do with the president.

GRB

05-20-2009, 06:35 PM

I wonder when highway deaths will reach 100,000 a year again? I guess saving lives doesn't really matter in this case.

Kim_Howie

05-20-2009, 07:05 PM

The pres passed the tax increase. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif

70 copo

05-20-2009, 07:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have been there. same policies that gave us the 55MPH Speed limit and 165 HP V8's. Not a future I want.

[/ QUOTE ]

A speed limit? Petty . . . speed limits are still low in my area.

165 hp? Blame GM for that.

[ QUOTE ]

IMO... People who buy GM want what GM does best-an American V-8. HP and torque for towing and power for performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're speaking of the hobbyist who drives V8s as a hobby.

[ QUOTE ]

GM has tried to gain back market segment in cars from the imports for years by trying to be "like an import", while abandoning its core market for car buyers. Discontinuation of the F-body platform in 2002 is a prime example where the cobalt was to compete against the imports and the SSR was a bone thrown to the Camaro buyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're mistaken about Detroit's marketing. Discontinuing the F-body was arguable. The Cobalt was replacement for the unlamented Cavalier, and merely was Chevy's submission to competing in a class of vehicles. SSR? A niche vehicle.

[ QUOTE ]

Wrong on the Cobalt wrong on the SSR. More people left GM and went to other market segments.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with the Cobalt? Lackluster in comparison to the competition? So whose fault was that?

Ditto with the SSR - lack of hp? Whose fault was that?

[ QUOTE ]

Along the way GM finally became self aware and tried to reverse course. Difference is that now GM will be forced to build cars that are aligned with a market segment that they lost a decade ago to Honda and Toyota and I seriously doubt those buyers will be back abesent a rock bottom price.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may come as a surprise to you, but GM is not self-aware. GM's current situation most certainly has something to do with the economy but, even more so, GM's current situation has a hell of a lot to do with GM. Blaming the government is a convenient way to ignore the problems GM has had . . . but that's par for the course as GM has ignored its problems for years. Ironic, considering they have a portfolio of stellar cars.

Now, against the wall, GM is faced with making compromises in its future. The capitalist in me says to let GM die, but the American in me says we need to help Detroit as much as we can. . . so we have the government to do that. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif

You can't get back to health until you figure out what's causing the symptoms. I hope that GM has figured it out for once. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of speed limits why not speed governed vehicles that are adjusted by GPS... They are looking into this now for future applications... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

On the cobalt.. you can disagree but its sales are what they are.. do a comparison with the imports.

On the SSR - it currently makes multiple lists of the worst vehicles ever built. Check it out. If you need help I will post links for you. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

The Imports are what they are. Typically they are small displacement and are far less than exciting to drive and lack the butt busting torque that most American's prefer when towing or driving a muscle car.

Remember a little thing called Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?? Constraints like this placed upon the the folks by the government is exactly what ended the first round of performance cars in the early 1970's and will no doubt end it now.

Question for you.... Tell us all how we will be able to meet fleet 2016 MPG requirements, Mass produce a vehicle that a defined market segment still clearly wants to buy (Camaro, Corvette, Challenger, Mustang check the sales they are significant) and still make over 400 HP with an "all American V8" and keep it fun to drive?

That was (and is) the topic of this thread...lest we go too far into the weeds http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

IMO.... The Government has NO business telling the market and a significant buying segment what it can or cannot drive.

Make no mistake I am not talking about Hobbyists but new vehicles. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

442w30

05-20-2009, 08:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Speaking of speed limits why not speed governed vehicles that are adjusted by GPS... They are looking into this now for future applications... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You're offering more fire and brimstone. Why not offer substance?

[ QUOTE ]

On the cobalt.. you can disagree but its sales are what they are.. do a comparison with the imports.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I'm a little confused what you're talking about.

There's a market segment where Chevrolet has an interest in offering their submission for the public's demand. Chevrolet offers a value-laden car that doesn't compete well with better offerings from Japan, Korea, or even across town.

[ QUOTE ]

On the SSR - it currently makes multiple lists of the worst vehicles ever built. Check it out. If you need help I will post links for you. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen those articles. They are lame and only end up feeding more BS to the general population that Detroit's problem was product and quality when that isn't necessarily the problem.

[ QUOTE ]

The Imports are what they are. Typically they are small displacement and are far less than exciting to drive and lack the butt busting torque that most American's prefer when towing or driving a muscle car.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're comparing a daily driver with a musclecar?

What's wrong with this picture?

[ QUOTE ]

Remember a little thing called Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?? Constraints like this placed upon the the folks by the government is exactly what ended the first round of performance cars in the early 1970's and will no doubt end it now.

[/ QUOTE ]

What ended the first round of performance cars was insurance. The energy crisis merely followed.

Besides, your right to go fast is not a right at all. In fact, to tie liberty to a car is kinda funny - there are people in the world who can't say what they feel because of a totalitarian regime, and you think your freedom is being undermined? You have plenty of resources at your disposal to go fast despite your doom-and-gloom prognosis (which, by the way, hasn't been qualified yet).

[ QUOTE ]

Question for you.... Tell us all how we will be able to meet fleet 2016 MPG requirements, Mass produce a vehicle that a defined market segment still clearly wants to buy (Camaro, Corvette, Challenger, Mustang check the sales they are significant) and still make over 400 HP with an "all American V8" and keep it fun to drive?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like CAFE and I don't like the new proposal. However, I try to call a spade a spade rather than get all bent out of shape over uncertainty. I try to look at the big picture and, when it comes down to Detroit, they have an antiquated business model with horrendous legacy costs and a poor product portfolio. The poor economy has reduced their liquidity although Ford had the luck of selling off its assets before things got bad. Now, they are in PR mode trying to tell us they're better because they didn't receive a loan, but I know Ford is as bad as any other company in Detroit.

Late BrakeU2

05-20-2009, 08:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Ford had the luck of selling off its assets before things got bad. Now, they are in PR mode trying to tell us they're better because they didn't receive a loan, but I know Ford is as bad as any other company in Detroit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luck, or foresight? When the dust settles they will be the only domestic left that didn't file BK and crawl to this admin with a cup in their hand. Maybe they had less arrogance than the other two,and actually released new products on time?

And now the UAW is pissed GM is planning to import cars from China- go figure

70 copo

05-20-2009, 08:54 PM

Not so fast... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

"What ended the first round of performance cars was insurance. The energy crisis merely followed".
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gifWhat about the governmental requirement to switch to unleded low octane fuel. Did you forget about that?? Way more to do with the death of performance than insurance.

---------------------------------------------

"Besides, your right to go fast is not a right at all. In fact, to tie liberty to a car is kinda funny - there are people in the world who can't say what they feel because of a totalitarian regime, and you think your freedom is being undermined? You have plenty of resources at your disposal to go fast despite your doom-and-gloom prognosis (which, by the way, hasn't been qualified yet)".

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gifPerhaps in your world view -I have no right to go fast. Thanks for making your positions clear for all to see publicly right here! With this view (your view), the car collector could soon be a target of future "progressive legislation" without a doubt targeting muscle cars- (and needless to say, but I will anyway)... I disagree with you 100% on this opinion and most here would do the same http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/scholar.gif

"I don't like CAFE and I don't like the new proposal. However, I try to call a spade a spade rather than get all bent out of shape over uncertainty. I try to look at the big picture and, when it comes down to Detroit, they have an antiquated business model with horrendous legacy costs and a poor product portfolio. The poor economy has reduced their liquidity although Ford had the luck of selling off its assets before things got bad. Now, they are in PR mode trying to tell us they're better because they didn't receive a loan, but I know Ford is as bad as any other company in Detroit"

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gifBut I asked you a simple question about the future of the V-8 where you could have been so proactive... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsdown.gif

70 copo

05-20-2009, 10:18 PM

Here is the far Green digest of all things automotive, and guess what they hate V8's and are signaling a dislike for the new Camaro... Imagine that.

Here: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/05/19/i-financial-times-i-gm-doesnt-need-chevy-camaro-success-w/

442w30

05-20-2009, 10:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Luck, or foresight? When the dust settles they will be the only domestic left that didn't file BK and crawl to this admin with a cup in their hand. Maybe they had less arrogance than the other two,and actually released new products on time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Luck. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/scholar.gif

Don't forget that it was just a few short years ago that Ford was in the weakest position of the Big 3. They have had a lot of problems in the decade as well, including:

- the Explorer tire debacle
- letting the equity of the Taurus sink, then introducing the 500 with no identity whatsoever
- letting Mercury and Lincoln become badge-engineered nothings
- not importing the second-generation Focus to America

Ford does not deserve my good graces any more than any other company in Detroit.

442w30

05-20-2009, 10:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gifWhat about the governmental requirement to switch to unleded low octane fuel. Did you forget about that?? Way more to do with the death of performance than insurance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really.

For all the hype about 1970, the trend against performance cars was already in place. Don't believe me? Look at sales for all performance cars compared with 1969. Certainly lowered compression by 1972 played a role, but performance was not hurt a much as people have said in the past (judging by the Pure Stock races, among other things).

Insurance was the death knell.

[ QUOTE ]

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gifPerhaps in your world view -I have no right to go fast. Thanks for making your positions clear for all to see publicly right here! With this view (your view), the car collector could soon be a target of future "progressive legislation" without a doubt targeting muscle cars- (and needless to say, but I will anyway)... I disagree with you 100% on this opinion and most here would do the same http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/scholar.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure about that? We all know the cliche about driving being a privilege, so how is "going fast" any different? And who says you can't modify your car to "go fast?"

Once again, nothing qualified. Show me some proof.

[ QUOTE ]

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gifBut I asked you a simple question about the future of the V-8 where you could have been so proactive... http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsdown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

CAFE is an aggregate item, so the V-8 won't disappear anytime soon.

70 copo

05-20-2009, 10:53 PM

Again not so fast...

"Not really. for all the hype about 1970, the trend against performance cars was already in place. Don't believe me? Look at sales for all performance cars compared with 1969. Certainly lowered compression by 1972 played a role, but performance was not hurt a much as people have said in the past (judging by the Pure Stock races, among other things).

Insurance was the death knell."

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gifPlease Dont make me Scan copies of my automobile performance Magazine collection from the early 1970's that point clearly to the advent of Emission controls and unleded Gas with the production effect of lowered compression ratios and loss of HP. Insurance was a gripe and hurt sales also but the government's own regulations strangled the life out of these cars. This is factual and in print over and over again from '71 forward.

The zenith was reached in late '74 for the 1975 models with the Catalytic converter which caused GM to decide to drop the Z/28. Not a darn thing to do with insurance rates as the cars were selling strong in 1974.

As to the remainder of your opinions - good for you! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

JoeG

05-20-2009, 11:30 PM

GM/Government Motors is a micro management corruption fiasco in the making......
Look,.....more stringent emission standards were enevitable, but I think it would have been wiser to see if GM could at least survive and produce a vehicle that the American people would buy before putting an added burden on the car companies with untimely overstrigent emission requirements..but I've afraid the boys from Brazil will just keep recklessly spending our money till they get it right...
I've would have liked to see the consumer decide whether or not he wanted to buy a government green car and get a income tax credit for his leap of fate..this way the money would benefit the individual family and not go back to the Obama's money program pit in Washington..
Maybe ,if GM does get back on its feet it can eventually get some private investors and buy out the government(if this administration will let them)---
Can't wait for the government color charts--Global warming gray---Ozone protection orange--Barack blue---Government green..Pelosi pink .. Recycle red.....Just my lousy $.02 against this Nationalization http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gif............. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Late BrakeU2

05-20-2009, 11:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Luck. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/scholar.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It is said that luck is when preparation meets opportunity, Ford had a chance to restructure it's debt before someone else did it for them(hint) In the end it only goes on the scoreboard one way though.

Guess it was just bad timing on GM's part?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GM&t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=F

70 copo

05-21-2009, 12:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Luck. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/scholar.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It is said that luck is when preparation meets opportunity, Ford had a chance to restructure it's debt before someone else did it for them(hint) In the end it only goes on the scoreboard one way though.

Guess it was just bad timing on GM's part?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GM&t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=F

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy that chart says it all. Someone at Ford was thinking. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

69Tom

05-21-2009, 02:17 AM

I not saying this to be a smart-a$$ or be facetious, but honestly, do the majority of people really care about cars anymore? I mean, really have a bond with a brand or a love for their car? We're car guys so I think it's easy to think people care as much as we do. I dunno, out of my group of friends in my age range, I'm one of the few people who's really into cars. I'll meet some people who are into BMWs or Porsches, but when it comes to an American brands, it seems like that was killed off somewhere along the last 20 year road into oblivion.

People are claiming, "But the Camaro had 14K pre-orders!!!" Now, this is a good thing and I'm glad there's still some interest, but when you compare this to production totals of the Camaro in its heyday, it's barely skimming the overall production. Now, hopefully, over the production year, they'll get a lot more orders. But I'd actually be surprised to see it break 50K. Hopefully I will be so.

All in all, people seem to only use their cars to get from point A to B. They want one that does so cheaply, with as little effort or work on their part as possible. I sometimes think if a car was invented that washed itself, never needed an oil change, and got good gas mileage, it would immediately become the best selling car in the US, irrespective of how it looked. If you need an example, check the style (if you can call it that) of the Toyota Prius. That is possibly one of the ugliest cars on the road (in fact, do hybrid cars automatically have to be ugly as hell? is that a governmental requirement?)

I come from a GM family--my grandfather worked at the Tonawanda plant building engines--chances are he built my COPO engine, and my other grandfather sold tooling to GM--so I am not stating this from an angle that come from hope the performance car and the US car companies die. It just seems like that's the way things are and will be unless car designs start sparking an interest in people again.

It'll definitely be harder with those fuel requirements and costs. And definitely hard to sway people's sentiment the other way about it.

Feel free to prove me wrong. In fact, I hope I am wrong. It's just the sense I get from people in the younger generations.

mockingbird812

05-21-2009, 02:43 AM

You have friends that aren't into cars! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hmmm.gif

70 copo

05-21-2009, 02:44 AM

Kids still love cars. It is just a heck of alot cheaper to get a honda with a VTEC and put a Greddy Turbo on it.

None of the domestic manufacturers had any thing close to VTEC for years.

Lots of kids went Jap and did not come back. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/3gears.gif

69Tom

05-21-2009, 02:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You have friends that aren't into cars! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hmmm.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I need new friends! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

ORIGLS6

05-21-2009, 04:08 AM

You've got 'em, ............. right here.

442w30

05-21-2009, 06:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gifPlease Dont make me Scan copies of my automobile performance Magazine collection from the early 1970's that point clearly to the advent of Emission controls and unleded Gas with the production effect of lowered compression ratios and loss of HP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't scan your old car magazines! Don't! http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif

Once again, you're only looking at what you want to look at. Insurance was the beginning of the end. By 1970, consumers were being penalized by the insurance industry for having a 4-speed tranny, never mind that it was behind a 318 Barracuda! And all you have to do is look at the sales of many musclecars from 1970 and see how they fell drastically from 1969 . . . the Road Runner fell by more than half. The GTO probably fell 40%. Yet we consider 1970 the high point? That ball was already rolling by the time all manufacturers lowered their compression in 1972. Plus, if you look at some cars from 1971-2, you'll see that the Chevelle SS included small blocks, the GS became one model line, the 4-4-2 downgraded to a base 350, the Road Runner offered a small block for the first time . . . hell, the standard 'Cuda engine was a 318! These moves were done to increase the appeal of cars that had a strong image but owners were not willing to pay severe surcharges by the insurance industry.

Suggesting emissions is the real reason is really not telling the whole story . . . and if you know anything about Pontiacs, emissions was a poor excuse not to drop into the 13s from the showroom floor. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/burnout.gif

[ QUOTE ]

The zenith was reached in late '74 for the 1975 models with the Catalytic converter which caused GM to decide to drop the Z/28. Not a darn thing to do with insurance rates as the cars were selling strong in 1974.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're TOTALLY wrong. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/scholar.gif

For one thing, you're making it seem that cleaner air is such a bad thing. The problem with the regulation was that it didn't give the engineers enough time to develop the equipment without hurting performance so much.

But, by 1974, many performance cars were not selling as well as before. The Barracuda/Challenger and Javelin died after 1974. But the Camaro Z/28? Sales were poor in 1972 (partly due to a strike) but production increased through 1974 after the LT-1 was banished. If the demise of the Z is due to emissions, how do you explain the continuation of the 400 and 455 Firebirds, Plymouth Road Runners, Corvettes, and 360 Dusters?

So, in other words, no need to get out your magazines . . . all you need is this site. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

442w30

05-21-2009, 06:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Look,.....more stringent emission standards were enevitable, but I think it would have been wiser to see if GM could at least survive and produce a vehicle that the American people would buy before putting an added burden on the car companies with untimely overstrigent emission requirements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed 110%.

70 copo

05-21-2009, 02:20 PM

442...

Here is a great article that you should read: http://kotorimagazine.com/index.php?news=194

Here is a key quote:

"For many historians 1972 marked the death of the United States automotive industry. Safety features and fuel economy regulations strangled an industry already hurting from foreign imports and consumer tastes. That was the same year we re-elected Richard M. Nixon as president. It was also the last year someone walked on the moon. Coincidence? This was the death of our self-identity and our progress. That was what killed the auto industry, and in turn America. It was a death at the hands of stagnation and a culture that cared less about art and science and more about stuff."

Really now... Please do not make me get the 1975 issue of Car craft out where the headline "King Kong is alive and well on Long Island" where the Goverment came after Poor Joel Rosen on Emissions violations and put him out of the supercar business all for building V8 vegas.

Joel Rosen was running a speed shop.

We have done this all before. If we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.

70 copo

05-21-2009, 04:16 PM

442... On the Z-28 and 1974... you are twisting things quite a bit. The demise of the Z-28 in its original "Special Hi-performance engine" designation as an option on a standard Camaro was due to regulations and GM's inability to meet the new requirements without further diminishing performance. The option was reserrected in 1977 at mid year as a handling package RPO. The 1974 cancellation was 100% due to emissions.

Chevrolet officials went on record in 1974 and said so.

This is part of the factual record from this period.

COPO 70 RS/Z28

05-21-2009, 05:02 PM

Just remember.....

THE NEW RED IS GREEN

Kim_Howie

05-21-2009, 06:15 PM

Diego, Where did you get this info " By 1970 comsumers were penalized by ins. co. for having a 4-speed" Just what SH## house wall did you read that one on. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/haha.gif No VIN# showed if the car had a 4-speed or not back then. I have NEVER asked that question to anybody in the last 36 as a Ins. agent. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bs.gif

442w30

05-21-2009, 06:21 PM

Kim, this was in a buff magazine from 1970. I suspect a company would want more than a VIN to know what they were insuring, especially considering the engine code is not in the VIN.

But 36 years is not quite 1970, eh? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

I'll get back to the others later . . . thanks for the interesting entertainment (I mean that seriously, not in a condescending manner). http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beers.gif

Kim_Howie

05-21-2009, 07:06 PM

We asked for the vin # only. Did then, still do. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggthumpup.gif

Chevy454

05-22-2009, 08:19 PM

Here's an interesting read that I just ran across...apparently, the 42mpg standard ain't as far off as we initially thought:

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/05/22/edmunds-finds-new-cafe-standards-has-loopholes-big-enough-to-dr/

[ QUOTE ]
Cliff notes:

There are miles per gallon... and then there are miles per gallon. How do you tell the difference? One is labeled "CAFE mpg" and the other is labeled "EPA mpg." What's the difference? Well, Edmunds is taking pains to illuminate the large discrepancy that exists between the two figures: the issue ....

The change meant that when a customer bought a car that listed 26 combined mpg (EPA) on the window sticker, the CAFE mpg rating for that car remained at around 35 mpg.

....

""a vehicle that scores an EPA combined rating of 29 miles per gallon actually contributes 39 MPG to its manufacturer's CAFE average. There are 29 car models and 36 truck models that already achieve the new standard, and about a third of the cars and half of the trucks are produced by a domestic automaker.""

[/ QUOTE ]