Is this the peak of the modern muscle cars?

[SeanPlunk]

With the new C.A.F.E. standards, does anyone else feel like we're seeing the end of the modern muscle car era? I feel like the Challenger, the Mustang, and the new Camaro may be the last of their kind. The last 10 years have been amazing though. The number cars that run stock quarter miles in the 13's or less has been nothing short of amazing...

[enkeivette]

Probably. But if you think about it, they've already hit most of the popular muscle cars of the day. We already have the:

T-Bird
Mustang
Charger
Corvette
and the Camaro & Challenger are coming soon.

So what's left?

I've even seen a concept of a TransAm. The only one I can think of that hasn't been redone is the Chevelle... well Aloha Motors took a shot at the Chevelle and it looked like ass. Unless it's produced by GM I'm not counting it. I suppose it would be cool to see Plymouth come out with a Cuda based on the Callenger chassis.

P.S. I'm not adding the FWD V6 Impala to my list.

[SeanPlunk]

Yes, I see what you're saying, my point is just simply that I think the end of any kind of high volume affordable V8 may be coming to an end. They'll still be around I'm sure, but I'm not sure something like a 100k unit Mustang GT can exist in the new CAFE world.

[vonage6591]

I see exactly what your saying and I think your pretty much 100% correct. With more and more emphasis put on efficiency and regulations it's becoming harder and harder for powerful cars to exist in the numbers that we're used to. Something else i've been thinking of is what happens when we as a country switch over to an "alternative fuel" like hydrogen? From the very little reading i've done on the subject is is my understanding that a fuel like hydrogen would have substantially less power than that of gasoline. I know something like that would be quite a ways off but it's still interesting to think about.

[enkeivette]

I see exactly what your saying and I think your pretty much 100% correct. With more and more emphasis put on efficiency and regulations it's becoming harder and harder for powerful cars to exist in the numbers that we're used to. Something else i've been thinking of is what happens when we as a country switch over to an "alternative fuel" like hydrogen? From the very little reading i've done on the subject is is my understanding that a fuel like hydrogen would have substantially less power than that of gasoline. I know something like that would be quite a ways off but it's still interesting to think about.

Gasoline will always be available as long as people are still buying it. Even once we begin to use alternative fuels regularly, gasoline will still be available. I'm not saying anything about the price of it though.

Also, for those who care enough about their cars to keep them around, there are ways to convert a gas engine to natural gas, or propane, etc. I've seen a 500hp propane injected C3.

[anthonydalrymple]

Oh yeah..... It's just about over; out here in Cali anyways... Tree huggers, Democraps, and the "global warming must be entirely man made and has nothing to due with normal planet weather cycles" crowd are beginning to apply the pressure.... I won't even go into the world environmentalist nazi watch dogs in Europe turning the screws.....

[Vettezuki]

.... I won't even go into the world environmentalist nazi watch dogs in Europe turning the screws.....

I will. Dude, have you even considered the world environmentalist nazi watch dogs in Europe turning the screws?

I just finished a book you might really enjoy.

Liberal Facism

I'm thinking to construct a questionnaire called "Hillary or Hitler" to see if people can accurately identify the source of actual quotes. In all seriousness, I never understood why kind sensitive libertarian-conservative guys like me are called Fascists.:huh: I say if the shoe fits, stick it in your mouth.

[BRUTAL64]

Oh yeah..... It's just about over; out here in Cali anyways... Tree huggers, Democraps, and the "global warming must be entirely man made and has nothing to due with normal planet weather cycles" crowd are beginning to apply the pressure.... I won't even go into the world environmentalist nazi watch dogs in Europe turning the screws.....


The earth is 4 billion years old. How the hell could anyone know?:huh:

[vonage6591]

The earth is 4 billion years old. How the hell could anyone know?:huh:
Ben posted this a while back, interesting none the less

globally cooler
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

[SeanPlunk]

Ben posted this a while back, interesting none the less

globally cooler
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

Clearly you don't understand the concept of global warming. Global warming is an upward trend over time. A year over year drop really means nothing. It's like looking at humans over the last hundred years and saying evolution doesn't occur. These things take a VERY long time, but it's important to look at the data over the long haul. I'll admit though, global warming is a tough thing to measure, the data is all over the place and I don't think we have a totally clear picture of what's happening yet. I DO believe we are causing a warming trend though and should act responsibly to try to reduce CO2 as much as possible.

[Vettezuki]

Clearly you don't understand the concept of global warming. Global warming is an upward trend over time. A year over year drop really means nothing. It's like looking at humans over the last hundred years and saying evolution doesn't occur. These things take a VERY long time, but it's important to look at the data over the long haul. I'll admit though, global warming is a tough thing to measure, the data is all over the place and I don't think we have a totally clear picture of what's happening yet. I DO believe we are causing a warming trend though and should act responsibly to try to reduce CO2 as much as possible.

Clearly you don't understand the assertion I was making.

At the risk of being called a Holocaust denier, the point is that the models used to back up the global warming hypothesis (because there is no statical equivalent of control data sets, like planets nearly identical to Earth but without human civilization, there is heavy dependence on computer models) predicted strong continuous trends, in no small part because CO2 RETAINS HEAT in the atmosphere. More importantly, the sudden comparatively massive shift downward in the last year is NOT explainable within the same models used as the basis of assertion, which by definition means the models do not represent a complete and accurate understanding of the phenomena being modeled. Does this in and of itself mean that anthropogenic global warming is a total farce? No. But for the love of Christ it's relevant, and you want to talk about spin to downplay it. Emotional science is no science at all.

Basically, and this is where I get a bit offended, we are asked to put near complete faith in the models when they support desired outcomes, and intellectually (to be generous) assaulted with something more like religious fervor than rational discussion when daring to even raise suspicion based on rational observations.

I've said it once, I'll say it again. There is a crossing point most people can agree on. Clean power generation and use is an inherently good idea. After that, reducing CO2 production in economically viable ways is acceptable to me, even though I'm suspicious about how useful it is. However, going full-tilt nuts on reducing CO2 production seems catastrophically unwise. Finally, if for no other reason than China, India, to say nothing of South America and the likely future of Africa, even in extreme case scenarios man-made CO2 production will only increase for the foreseeable future. Note I said extreme case. Let's keep in mind that Japan, home of the supposedly modest Kyoto protocols, didn't come anywhere near their target reductions. And they try hard.

Oh, what do I think global warming is a lot about? This is a reasonable overview (http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/editor/guest/2008/03/21/the-alarm-industry/) from those right wing industrialist bastards at EcoWorld.

[gunfish]

I want to have a couple of beers with Ben!:bigthumbsup:

[SeanPlunk]

Clearly you don't understand the assertion I was making.

At the risk of being called a Holocaust denier, the point is that the models used to back up the global warming hypothesis (because there is no statical equivalent of control data sets, like planets nearly identical to Earth but without human civilization, there is heavy dependence on computer models) predicted strong continuous trends, in no small part because CO2 RETAINS HEAT in the atmosphere. More importantly, the sudden comparatively massive shift downward in the last year is NOT explainable within the same models used as the basis of assertion, which by definition means the models do not represent a complete and accurate understanding of the phenomena being modeled. Does this in and of itself mean that anthropogenic global warming is a total farce? No. But for the love of Christ it's relevant, and you want to talk about spin to downplay it. Emotional science is no science at all.

Basically, and this is where I get a bit offended, we are asked to put near complete faith in the models when they support desired outcomes, and intellectually (to be generous) assaulted with something more like religious fervor than rational discussion when daring to even raise suspicion based on rational observations.

I've said it once, I'll say it again. There is a crossing point most people can agree on. Clean power generation and use is an inherently good idea. After that, reducing CO2 production in economically viable ways is acceptable to me, even though I'm suspicious about how useful it is. However, going full-tilt nuts on reducing CO2 production seems catastrophically unwise. Finally, if for no other reason than China, India, to say nothing of South America and the likely future of Africa, even in extreme case scenarios man-made CO2 production will only increase for the foreseeable future. Note I said extreme case. Let's keep in mind that Japan, home of the supposedly modest Kyoto protocols, didn't come anywhere near their target reductions. And they try hard.

Oh, what do I think global warming is a lot about? This is a reasonable overview (http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/editor/guest/2008/03/21/the-alarm-industry/) from those right wing industrialist bastards at EcoWorld.

I'm not advocating we go full tilt crazy either. I have never said that. What I am saying is that we should do as much as we responsibly can to reduce C02 emissions. I think there is plenty of evidence to show we are having some effect, so even if it's small, why not try to be as efficient as possible?

[gunfish]

I'm not advocating we go full tilt crazy either. I have never said that. What I am saying is that we should do as much as we responsibly can to reduce C02 emissions. I think there is plenty of evidence to show we are having some effect, so even if it's small, why not try to be as efficient as possible?

I dunno, define "small," define "plenty of evidence," and define "some effect."

It's great to be efficient, but efficiency also counts when you're spending money. How much you wanna spend to affect what can arguably be described as minimal impact?

[BRUTAL64]

I want to have a couple of beers with Ben!:bigthumbsup:

Having spent a little time with Ben, he is what he appears to be-- very intelligent and I don't say that easily about anyone.:beer:

[SeanPlunk]

I dunno, define "small," define "plenty of evidence," and define "some effect."

It's great to be efficient, but efficiency also counts when you're spending money. How much you wanna spend to affect what can arguably be described as minimal impact?

Well, take a look at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

While wikipedia is not always accurate, this gives a pretty good idea of what is going on. I think there is sufficient evidence to prove that we are having a big enough effect that we should actively try to reduce our emissions. Having said that, I'm not advocating anything so drastic that economic progress stops, but reasonable steps. I think for instance reducing C02 output from vehicles should always be something we strive to accomplish.

[SeanPlunk]

Look at this: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D902G26G1&show_article=1

If Bush thinks it's happening, it's almost certainly not - that dude is always wrong. Maybe I need to change my view :p

[Vettezuki]

Look at this: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D902G26G1&show_article=1

If Bush thinks it's happening, it's almost certainly not - that dude is always wrong. Maybe I need to change my view :p


I knew you'd come around. Although the theory goes that the reason the administration is signing onto it is to co-opt as much regulatory policy as possible (i.e., run block from the inside.) Which, if true, I'm opposed to. If you're against something, be against it.

[Vettezuki]

. . . I think for instance reducing C02 output from vehicles should always be something we strive to accomplish.

From a manual on combustion chemistry:
In a perfectly operating engine with ideal combustion conditions, the following chemical reaction would take place.
- Hydrocarbons would react with oxygen to produce water vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
- Nitrogen (N2) would pass through the engine without being affected by the combustion process

In essence, only harmless elements would remain and enter the atmosphere.

The only real way to reduce CO2 is to reduce the amount O2 being burned. And now, Mr. 04 Cobra about to get pullied, good-bye muscle car era. Taken to logical extents, and ones many are actively arguing for, existing unnecessary vehicles (after all, who "needs" a Cobra or Corvette, etc.) should be banned.

[SeanPlunk]

From a manual on combustion chemistry:


The only real way to reduce CO2 is to reduce the amount O2 being burned. And now, Mr. 04 Cobra about to get pullied, good-bye muscle car era. Taken to logical extents, and ones many are actively arguing for, existing unnecessary vehicles (after all, who "needs" a Cobra or Corvette, etc.) should be banned.

LOL, I never said we should get rid of our cars. I just said we should try reduce C02 and energy use where possible. I drive my car 6k miles a year, and it will EASILY pass smog. It burns very clean. With the pulley and tune, it'll probably burn even cleaner(and burn gas way faster....). Besides, do as I say, not as I do :sm_laughing:

[Vettezuki]

LOL, I never said we should get rid of our cars. I just said we should try reduce C02 and energy use where possible. I drive my car 6k miles a year, and it will EASILY pass smog. It burns very clean. With the pulley and tune, it'll probably burn even cleaner(and burn gas way faster....). Besides, do as I say, not as I do :sm_laughing:

I'm sorry, I must be confused when you say you want to reduce CO2. The reason to pulley your supercharger is to spin faster to bring in more O2 for the engine to burn. By definition you will produce more CO2 . . . period. Is it possible to not run a pulley, thereby emitting less CO2? Is that not reasonable?

Now see, we're getting to the crux of the biscuit: you've said we should do reasonable things to reduce CO2 production, but have exempted yourself with regards to something you personally find fun. It's almost as good as an "environmentalist" running a gutted cat . . . (**)

[BRUTAL64]

LOL, I never said we should get rid of our cars. I just said we should try reduce C02 and energy use where possible. I drive my car 6k miles a year, and it will EASILY pass smog. It burns very clean. With the pulley and tune, it'll probably burn even cleaner(and burn gas way faster....). Besides, do as I say, not as I do :sm_laughing:

I reduce CO2s by walking to work.:judge:

[SeanPlunk]

I'm sorry, I must be confused when you say you want to reduce CO2. The reason to pulley your supercharger is to spin faster to bring in more O2 for the engine to burn. By definition you will produce more CO2 . . . period. Is it possible to not run a pulley, thereby emitting less CO2? Is that not reasonable?

Now see, we're getting to the crux of the biscuit: you've said we should do reasonable things to reduce CO2 production, but have exempted yourself with regards to something you personally find fun. It's almost as good as an "environmentalist" running a gutted cat . . . (**)

Of course you're correct, but I rationalize it by saying that no matter what car I drive currently I will be producing C02, so because I drive so little I might as well have a fun car. Besides, my carbon footprint is relatively small, so it's okay, right? :confused:

[Vettezuki]

Of course you're correct, but I rationalize it by saying that no matter what car I drive currently I will be producing C02, so because I drive so little I might as well have a fun car. Besides, my carbon footprint is relatively small, so it's okay, right? :confused:

It's a fair rationalization, albeit ideologically inconsistent. My concern is that if certain interests gain sufficient power, we will not have the choice to find our own balance in life as you have. The government in their infinite wisdom of social planning/engineering will determine what is acceptable and necessary for you as an individual so as to achieve certain societal goals. I'm not kidding about the slow progression towards a "Brave New World" scenario. I want no part of it. It lacks beauty in every natural sense.

[gunfish]

I'm sorry, I must be confused when you say you want to reduce CO2. The reason to pulley your supercharger is to spin faster to bring in more O2 for the engine to burn. By definition you will produce more CO2 . . . period. Is it possible to not run a pulley, thereby emitting less CO2? Is that not reasonable?

Now see, we're getting to the crux of the biscuit: you've said we should do reasonable things to reduce CO2 production, but have exempted yourself with regards to something you personally find fun. It's almost as good as an "environmentalist" running a gutted cat . . . (**)

Hey Ben, I thought the crux of the biscuit was the apostrophe?

[Vettezuki]

Hey Ben, I thought the crux of the biscuit was the apostrophe?

You know, I almost wrote that, but I thought Sean might get really confused . . . :smack:

[SeanPlunk]

You know, I almost wrote that, but I thought Sean might get really confused . . . :smack:

Yeah, you did lose me, I had to look it up. Frank Zappa is before my time :judge:

[Vettezuki]

Yeah, you did lose me, I had to look it up. Frank Zappa is before my time :judge:

He's before my time too. But I can't be too harsh on someone who thinks Jamiroquai is a "great" band. Ah just teasing.

Anywho, back on subject. In the next week or so I hope to read through the Lieberman-Warner bill. I'll try to keep an open-mind, but it looks like it my be the worst of all my fears about Government trying to "save the world". Big Business ain't stupid, they'll extract massive amounts of cash out of it, meanwhile, Joe Six Pack may as well get the Astroglide out.

[SeanPlunk]

He's before my time too. But I can't be too harsh on someone who thinks Jamiroquai is a "great" band. Ah just teasing.

Anywho, back on subject. In the next week or so I hope to read through the Lieberman-Warner bill. I'll try to keep an open-mind, but it looks like it my be the worst of all my fears about Government trying to "save the world". Big Business ain't stupid, they'll extract massive amounts of cash out of it, meanwhile, Joe Six Pack may as well get the Astroglide out.

Lieberman is crazy, I just saw him offering to go speak on behalf of McCain at the Republican convention. The crazy part is that he's AS LIBERAL AS IT GETS, unless it has something to do with Israel and then he gets uber conservative. I really don't like him at all.

[Vettezuki]

Lieberman is crazy, I just saw him offering to go speak on behalf of McCain at the Republican convention. The crazy part is that he's AS LIBERAL AS IT GETS, unless it has something to do with Israel and then he gets uber conservative. I really don't like him at all.

This is a radically different subject . . . start a new thread. To be honest, I don't know all of his record on Israel, but I have fairly strong opinions on the subject of Israel. (Are you surprised?)

[Sonic03SVT]

Anyone else think Sean ought to lead the charge here? Ill take that cobra off your hands, i know someone with a Prius you could have cheap!:bigthumbsup:

[SeanPlunk]

Anyone else think Sean ought to lead the charge here? Ill take that cobra off your hands, i know someone with a Prius you could have cheap!:bigthumbsup:

LOL, it always comes back to that - and you're all of course correct. Again, I'm not advocating that we stop progress because of global warming. I am saying we should reasonably try to reduce CO2 as a species overall where we can. And no, that doesn't include my Cobra :surrender:

[Vettezuki]

LOL, it always comes back to that - and you're all of course correct. Again, I'm not advocating that we stop progress because of global warming. I am saying we should reasonably try to reduce CO2 as a species overall where we can. And no, that doesn't include my Cobra :surrender:

I think that's fine, especially since you've used that wonderfully fuzzy term of "reasonable". What I don't think is fine is unreasoned dictatorial proclamations of enviro-evangelists, which is where we're headed IMO. The really strange part of this is that it may have a net backfire effect by stiffling real innovation. Government, freed from the burdens of generating money by selling goods and services in an open and competitive market, is empowered (like academic institutions) to think in ways that have little to do with economic realities.

Here's (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html) but a tiny taste of the future that awaits us.

[SeanPlunk]

I think that's fine, especially since you've used that wonderfully fuzzy term of "reasonable". What I don't think is fine is unreasoned dictatorial proclamations of enviro-evangelists, which is where we're headed IMO. The really strange part of this is that it may have a net backfire effect by stiffling real innovation. Government, freed from the burdens of generating money by selling goods and services in an open and competitive market, is empowered (like academic institutions) to think in ways that have little to do with economic realities.

Here's (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html) but a tiny taste of the future that awaits us.

It's fuzzy because it all depends on what your definition of "is," is :sm_laughing:

[Vettezuki]

It's fuzzy because it all depends on what your definition of "is," is :sm_laughing:

The greatest Presidential quote of all time. Who knew the Buba was a Zen master.