Obama motors

[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...

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by was92v

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.

Truth.

Originally Posted by was92v

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...

Good choice.........Chargers were way better-looking than Cuda's or Challengers. And this is coming from someone who used to own a '70 Cuda....It was way too long and wide for its own good, and the bodywork looked awkward because of the way it curved inward near the bottom, making it look top-heavy.

[Antwanny]

well whats it like being socialists in Soviet America Government fucks you

[Rsv1000R]

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.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by Rsv1000R

Homey, it's funny you complain about the size of the e-body, yet like the b-bodies which were a lot larger.

According to wikipedia, "The redesign for the 1970 Barracuda removed all its previous commonality with the Valiant. The original fastback design was deleted from the line and the Barracuda now consisted of coupe and convertible models. The all-new model, styled by John E. Herlitz, was built on a shorter, wider version of Chrysler's existing B platform, called the E-body. "

So yeah, the Cuda was shorter, but it was wider.

The 67-69 were much better-looking. 1970 marked the beginning of ugliness for just about every American car, IMO.

[Rsv1000R]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

According to wikipedia, "The redesign for the 1970 Barracuda removed all its previous commonality with the Valiant. The original fastback design was deleted from the line and the Barracuda now consisted of coupe and convertible models. The all-new model, styled by John E. Herlitz, was built on a shorter, wider version of Chrysler's existing B platform, called the E-body. "

So yeah, the Cuda was shorter, but it was wider.

The 67-69 were much better-looking. 1970 marked the beginning of ugliness for just about every American car, IMO.

It had about the same track, but was still almost 2" narrower.
76.7" to 74.9"

[Particle Man]

"Volkswagon" anyone?

[wildchild]

Originally Posted by Particle Man

"Volkswagon" anyone?

how does your Honda sound?.............LOL I like that commercial actually.

[unknownroad]

Originally Posted by was92v

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.

Actually, the shitty cars starting in 1971 (aka, the "Malaise Era") were a direct result of government and insurance pressure. Just about every weight-adding, performance-reducing, cost-increasing safety measure was introduced between '66-'74.

Halogen headlamps- far superior to sealed-beam incandescents, currently the standard for vehicle lighting, available in Europe since the 1960s. Banned in the United States until 1978; even today common consensus is that European domestic-market cars have lighting superior to U.S. cars, but U.S. legislation forbids those developments from use in our market. Thanks, Auntie Sam.

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?

Yes, we would. Why didn't we have digitally mapped fuel injection in 1960? Because the technology wasn't available. Chrysler experimented with mechanical fuel injection in 1958, and the components are now collectors items because it was such a dismal failure that they were mass-recalled. GM and Mercedes tried it as well, and all of them pulled it out of the market after a limited run. ABS? Lincoln tested a mechanical version in 1968; it wasn't until 1978 until Bosch/Mercedes had a system that was actually ready for mass production.

Crosley automobiles were getting 50 MPG in the 1940s. When the end of WWII brought back cheap gasoline and readily available large cars, it was the U.S. public that made their priorities clear; Crosley couldn't sell enough vehicles to stay in business, even selling new cars at used-car prices.

The Big 3 were always in competition with each other (back in the 50s and 60s the various GM divisions were in competition with each other, as well!)- if a new technology could be brought to market to improve performance and economy at the same time, at a reasonable price, they did it to increase sales! Witness the "Horsepower Wars" of the 1960s- it was all power, no fuel economy, because that's what people wanted- but R&D was unquestionably being done to prove engine performance. In 1955, the Chrysler 300 was the most powerful engine in the U.S. market (at 300HP); by 1965 the Chrysler and Ford factory Super Stock homologation cars were making over 500, and running 11.7s in the quarter... then the Ford "Cammer" came out with well over 600!!

Same with safety. When Ford brought seatbelts into the market as a safety feature, the public shunned them. I've owned four higher-end cars that had them as available options in the early 60s, and only one of those had that option selected by the original owner. The .gov pressure on that end has ALWAYS been focused on the driver, with the manufacturers being collateral damage.

So, to sum up: to the