Quote:
Originally Posted by was92v
As with almost everything, govt intervention can be both good and bad at the same time. I am old enough to remember riding and driving in cars from the 50's, 60's and 70's. They had their good points but plenty of not so good too. Many of the improvement were spawned by govt and insurance pressure. The awesome cars we have now are a direct result of pressure from the govt for fuel mileage and pollution controls mixed with a healthy dose owner outrage and Asian flight from that junk they made from 1974 -- 1993.
The American auto industry would still be making cars that were shot at 50K miles and incredibly un-crash worthy if not for outside pushing. People seem to think that those big ole cars were tuff and could take a hit. That is true up to a point, but in a real crash they came apart like a cheap watch in the hands of an 8 year old boy with a pocket knife. I remember what it was like and it was ugly. Steering columns would skewer the driver in the chest and drive it out their back. The passenger always went through the windshield and sometimes got cut in half on the snap back. It was not uncommon for 900 pounds of red hot engine to end up in the front seat on top of what used to be the passengers. Now days the car gets totaled and people walk away much of the time. Back then a "Total" often meant the people in the car too. Pressure from govt and Insurance companies is the only reason they crash better now.
The same digitally mapped fuel injection system that allows them to pass emission requirements is the same thing that allows a GM 5.7 liter to make 425 HP and still get 28 MPG on the highway. Would we have cars that perform that well, MPH & MPG, if not for the fuel mileage
requirements? However the time it takes to figure it out can be painful (witness 1974-1993).
Of course knowing this really doesn't make me want more Govt & Ins intrusion. Car prices and gasoline pricing tend to moderate things.
However if I win the lottery and I don't have to sweat the cash outlay I already have my daily driver picked out in my mind and it is not eco friendly.
It would be a 1968 Dodge Charger R/T with a 500HP Hemi, 6-speed, high end suspension, brakes and steering gear. Blk/Blk/Blk with white stripes draped over the tail...
 |
I too grew up in the 60's, and owned a number of 60's cars, and other than rust (I do live in the rust belt), all of them lasted more than 100,000 miles.
I'm okay with collapsing steering columns, and seatbelts, not so keen on 16 airbags and Mileage requirements.
Lastly, it was the digital revolution that cured the problem of getting decent mpg out of a performance engine. Not some government mandate.
Homey, it's funny you complain about the size of the e-body, yet like the b-bodies which were a lot larger.
Oh, and my TT Stealth was just a little off the performance of a regular vette of the era.