[The_Blur]

If GM's working on any mill, it's the rumor mill.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

I don't think Paul Revere was riding around trying to cheer people up OR cause them to hang themselves. He was alerting them to a threat that was to be beaten back and driven from our shores. (Hint hint)

Or he was too busy getting captured by the British while William Dawes and Samuel Prescott escaped capture and went on to warn the surrounding towns about troop movements.

The only reason Paul Revere's name is remembered in history is because it rhymed well for Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Or he was too busy getting captured by the British while William Dawes and Samuel Prescott escaped capture and went on to warn the surrounding towns about troop movements.

The only reason Paul Revere's name is remembered in history is because it rhymed well for Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem.

Does anyone remember the horse's name? I didn't think so.

[OldScoolCamaro]

....Mr. Ed....????

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

And chicken little ran around telling people the sky was falling when an acorn hit his head.

And Neville Chamberlain ran around telling everyone that everything was cool and that nothing bad was about to happen.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Or he was too busy getting captured by the British while William Dawes and Samuel Prescott escaped capture and went on to warn the surrounding towns about troop movements.

The only reason Paul Revere's name is remembered in history is because it rhymed well for Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem.

I know the story. But trying to explain it to the recent output of the education system is pointless.

The last person that tried to correct history on Paul Revere was skewered in the media.

[OldScoolCamaro]

....lets get beyond history.....and back to Camaro's....this is an automated Public Service Announcement...do not reply to this message....

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro

....lets get beyond history.....and back to Camaro's....this is an automated Public Service Announcement...do not reply to this message....

The funny thing is that if we went back in time to the late 1960's when the camaro first came out and we were in the middle of the pony car wars and I went to a show and told everyone that in 10 years the government would force all cars to have expensive cans full of reactive metals blocking the exhaust system, and miles of vacuum hoses, and belt driven air pumps to blow air into various parts of the engine not releated to forced induction, and the top trans am with a 6.6 liter engine would have under 200HP.... well, the "car guys" would have laughed at me then.

Of course, the much smarter "car guys" of today say this will never happen again, and even if it did, we worked through it last time and now cars are way more powerful. Most of them don't realize it took 25 years to get back to where we were in the 60's as far as horsepower is concerned. 25 years is a MIGHTY big setback, dontcha think?

Nobody pay attention to Chicken Little. His documented history is nothing to worry about.

[Lou_Dorchen]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Nobody pay attention to Chicken Little. His documented history is nothing to worry about.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana

[OldScoolCamaro]

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana

...and what pray tell are we forgetting about, and at risk of repeating.....?, the oil embago's of the 70's are not repeating, the down sizing of cars and their related performance then, is not even close by any stretch of the imagination similar in any way to the new GOV and EPA standards we are facing today and what can and will be delivered performance wise to the market. In '74, performance levels were knocked back to the dark ages, and it brought forth so many cars that were basically, for the lack of a better word, junk. That phase took decades to emerge from. Smaller, lighter, stronger, and still faster than ever is here for this second coming prophecy of gloom and doom GOV mandates that some are alluding to.

[Lou_Dorchen]

Originally Posted by OldScoolCamaro

...and what pray tell are we forgetting about, and at risk of repeating.....?,

Captain said it well, but I'll give it a try as well.

We are risking losing the choices in performance we have today. The 'muscle' cars that came out after the Gov't regulations in the 1970s were a joke. We run that risk with the new regulations. Fleets will have to average 54.5MPG by 2025. Something else to consider; coverage of medium duty trucks has been added to the CAFE regulations starting in 2012, and heavy duty commercial trucks starting in 2014. So now those low MPG vehicles will count against the average when they have not been counted before.

To show how tough 54.5MPG is to get, consider the Fiat 500 gets 40MPG highway, the Mini Cooper gets 37MPG highway, and the Prius gets 51MPG highway.

Now we all know that technology will advance, but who can say how much? And dont count on shedding weight being the answer. The Gov't mandates crash safety requirements as well. Speaking of safety, the Fiat 500 got the lowest cash test rating of ALL new cars.

So unless technology makes some serious headway it is just not going to be possible to continue to sell the high HP, but low MPG, performance cars in the volumes we do now (if they can even be sold at all). Remember, these new CAFE numbers were put into effect before the previous ones (which were lower) had ran their course. 54.5 in 2025 can change you know. It might actually get worse!

It's got zero to do with politics, or alarmism, or anything else. It's just simple math.

Links:
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...-new-cars.html
http://autos.yahoo.com/fiat/500/2013/
http://www.edmunds.com/mini/cooper/2013/mpg.html
http://autos.yahoo.com/toyota/prius/2013/

[Lou_Dorchen]

My last post was about the future I'm worried about as an automobile entusiast. Here is the past I fear we may repeat. Some here may be too young to remember how bad it really was.

The Camaro's Z28 option was discontinued for 1975 despite an increase in sales to over 13,000 units in 1974 and similar popularity of Pontiac's Firebird Trans Am. Chevy dropped the Z28 due to ever-tightening emission standards that spelled the end of the higher-output versions of the 350 cubic-inch V8, rated at 245 horsepower in 1973 and 1974. Engines that were offered in 1975 continued to reflect the impact of these regulations in their declining horsepower ratings. Two 350 cid (5.7 L) V8s produced 145 hp and 155 hp.

Ford discontinued the V8 option in the Mustang in 1974 for the first (and so far only) time. They brought it back in 1975, but were limited to a 2-barrel carb resulting in a 140hp 302 V8.

In 1974 Chrysler discontinued the Barracuda and Dodge Challenger, American Motors discontinued the Javelin.


I sure as heck don't want to repeat that again. Do you? How about we just let the consumers decide what we want to drive instead of letting the Government tell us what we are allowed to drive. Our founding documents gave us the right to the "pursuit of happiness". Does that not apply to those of us who derive happiness from driving automobiles that exhilerate us?

[Mr. Wyndham]

I think one big difference between today, and the 70s...is that the manufacturers don't seem nearly as willing to sacrifice performance to get the mpgs gains this time around...fwiw...

I choose to be aware & optimistic.

[OldScoolCamaro]

....let's face it. Greenhouse emissions, the GOV, and the consumers are not going to go away by any part or measure. The intent is to improve the climate by reducing the carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions. I get that. In the end will it matter? I am not convinced. Cars are not the biggest ozone bully on the block. We have no real voice in the matter, it's more of a common sense issue. We globaly need to at least try to make some difference, as futile as it may be. I am not an Al Gore supporter BTW..... The elephant in the room is that today we have technology that will satisfy everyones need, from fuel efficiency to high performance, much unlike what we faced many decades ago.