View Single Post
Old 02-16-2013, 09:14 AM   #295
Norm Peterson
corner barstool sitter
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 19 WRX
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 6,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
I'm very aware . . .
There actually have been times where I wondered how things would have turned out had I become a machinist instead. Might have been a bit more portable. Whether I'd have ended up any better off we'll never know.
Quote:
Guess we will all just have to agree to disagree, because this thing sure hung a left a long time a go.
Fair enough, at least on that point.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
I think it would be much more productive to get the makers of those cars to offer a coupe version than it would be to change the camaro into a 2 door copy of them.
Somehow, I can't see tougher competition at the Camaro's entry point being a good thing for the Camaro.


Quote:
You are misreading me. I don't really care what they offer in terms of a base model, but I see here a lot of people who seem to be saying that a tiny camaro with a tiny engine with the boost cranked up is what they want the car to be.
Then you are guilty of a little misreading as well. People aren't clamoring for a hand-grenade T4, or necessarily even a T4 making STi/Evo numbers. Opposition to T4's based on imagined states of tune higher than necessary is being used as an argument against ALL T4's There's probably a fancy name for this kind of logical fallacy, but I'm too lazy to go chase it down..

Think in terms of 2.5L or a bit more, with more moderate boost levels that would come in quicker or at lower revs. Balance-shafted if/as necessary.


Quote:
I think you would find these same people in a Harley Davidson forum complaining because they don't make crotchrockets.
Rehash of the Camaro pickup argument?



Quote:
But that's only a small part of my disagreement. The biggest part of it is that there are people on here who knowingly put aside their own common sense to take the side that CAFE standards are a good thing and that it won't hurt the Camaro to have them. The 4 cylinder camaro can be attributed to the CAFE standards and I believe that to meet those goals that the I4 will be nowehere near the performer people dream of. It wouldn't surprise me if they put something like CAGS or AFM on the I-4 (or worse), because they "have" to. Meanwhile the V8 will be reduced to a limited production car that only Jay Leno and Rick Hendrick will be able to afford.
This isn't an all-or-nothing situation. Even you'll have to admit that forcing the technology has (at the very least as a side effect if not by outright intent) produced more powerful engines. Hell, with only a little 281, my '08 Mustang is both quicker and traps higher than what the SS396 Chevelles could do. Think about that, from a hundred fifteen fewer cubic inches.

But I get the concept of diminishing returns, and we're off the steep part of the learning curve as it is. Seems to me a reasonable point to at least pause.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
Many people can afford things but choose not to because they don't like the direction things are going. Why buy a $60K car when someone might decide that you don't "need" it and take it away.
Once you've bought it, it's yours. Hence what you're hinting at clearly runs afoul of the 4th Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
That's a really bogus comparison. The 82 V8 was a complete POS because the EPA and NHTSA came along with all their CAFE and "smog" standards 10 years earlier, and it took the car companies another 10 years to get back to where they were when it all started.

If you think we shoud all go back to driving cars for the with power like that of cars 20 years ago (taking 20 years to get back to current power), then CAFE is your ticket.
And to think that I thought we'd ALL managed to get past thinking thaqt all 4 cylinder engines were Iron Dukes . . .

Quote:
I think many of the people here must have been born in the mid-late 80's and came of driving age in the late 90's or early 2000's, and completly missed the dreck we had in the mid 70's and 80's. They have NO CLUE how bad CAFE was for performance, so they don't know enough to oppose it.
This is perhaps true, though it was the confluence of CAFE and early emissions control terchnology. Yes, I remember when catalytic converters were filled with pellets too. Might still have one of those things laying around somewhere.

Have to agree with SlingShot on this

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot View Post
Performance started taking a hit around 1971, when emission standards was increased and low lead fuel was introduced. After that is when they started to make standards for MPG. The problem we had was the lack of technology to keep up. We have come a long way since then, and far surpassed the performance levels prior to the new standards due mainly through new technology.

Norm
Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote