further the SUV culture is a seperate topic and by all means raise that issue, especially if you live in a warm climate. This is also a topic for social pressure.
I live in rural VT where an SUV can at least at times be sort-of justified during snowstorms. I leave the SUV topic to you. But the mentality is similar, and you raise an important point about that and the kids being driven around in them.
Again, my point is that the “Car Guys” could have and should have raise the issue to this woman and her kid and it was not even thought about. If the brodcast was about a large SUV then that is what I’d be talking about.
You are right I am not the problem. The problem is also not the muscle car. The majority of the fuel consumed by the US population is done by people who do not care.
The guy that goes out and buys a huge SUV to tow his boat or trailer twice a year. Then spends the next 11 months driving it to work alone.
How about the young kids with there high powered rice burners that drive around town showing them off. The fuel they are consuming is wasted.
The huge motorhomes traveling the nations highways getting 8 miles a gallon again getting no where important.
The muscle car era was a great time for America. The vehicles produced during that era should be taken care of and enjoyed. The environmental freaks will have them removed from the road soon enough. Until then I will drive mine and enjoy it.
As to your neighbor who owns the Subarban, have you said anything to him/her? Have you applied social pressure? they might tell you off but at least you will have tried, you should because it affects you, the available gas/oil and those who have to go fight for it in the Mid-east. You are making these efforts to bike and walk and save gas but your neighbor is wasting them and you should let them know how it affects us all.
yup, all good topics to raise, but one at a f*&*ing time. Here was a perfect opportunity for Click and clack to raise the issue and they dropped the ball which is my point. The responses here continually illustrate that.
You are missing the point. The point is you want all muscle cars to be banned and destroyed. Yet the biggest violators are huge SUV’s and people that cannot or will not conserve natural resources. I own a muscle car and enjoy it. I also make every effort to conserve resources when possible. Taking away my car or the cars of my friends will not change the attitudes of the SUV & motorhome owners. These are the people you should be attacking.
No both groups are to be attacked; yes some of these choice cars should be preserved as reminders of our past.
You are right, the SUV crowd is a much bigger target and deservedly so. On a visit to NJ recently I counted 4 ?hummers?. I wanted to set them a flame, but as I do not condone lawlessness or vandalism I won?t. But I will apply pressure.
But don?t change the subject; the muscle car should be forced from the road. As we are now in an age where most avoid personal responsibility and point the finger elsewhere rather than admit their part.
Muscle car drivers/owners/enthusiasts your time has come to admit your part, change your thinking and help the rest of us go after the SUV crowd.
Suppose I?m an M-1 tank owner/enthusiast I don?t demand to drive it in city traffic, nor should you tolerate me doing so.
If it is the muscle car segment you wish to attack then explain to me what the problem is.
As I previously mentioned I have a muscle car that gets 14 mpg. It is driven approx. 200 miles a year for purely pleasure. Sometimes it is taken to car shows, sometimes it is driven in parades, and sometimes I load up the kids and we just drive it to enjoy it.
My car as most cars from this era spend 9-10 months of the year in the garage. I like all of my friends that own these cars maintain them in peak running condition.
What is the problem and how are we the segment that is causing the excessive consumption of resources. How can you justify the muscle car as the direct link to the war in Iraq?
Junk a classic!?!?! Are you kidding?!?!? No way. How about encouraging people to stop buying big, gas guzzling SUV’s if your that worried about it. There’s more of those on the road than classic “muscle cars”. What cracks me up is most people with giant SUV’s don’t even use them for off road applications, they just like the status symbol. These things use as much gas as classic cars. It would literally make me cry if I saw a junk pile full of classic cars. So sad!!!
I say give the kid the muscle car, regardless of gas milage. It will set most of the time at hoe when he finally realizes that it does cost a lot to operate. He will ease of the pedal slowly, but he will do it.
Modern cars use just as much gas as these old muscled did, and it seems that the manufacturers really don’t care much about it. They will eventually get the cars to use less gas, but that will be done slowly too.
I don’t think that we should lock ourselves up in a house with all lights turned off to save energy either.
If we are talking about a fuel injected car with its computer controls, the teenager may not be able to afford the equipment to maintain the car. The 1970’s and ealier cars made it easier to understand that a fuel mixture charge goes into a cylinder, is compressed and ignited. As he becomes more sophisticated, then he learns how the computer controls this.
Of course, I’m not certain that a high school student needs a car. Back in 1957, I got my first job at $.60 an hour. I saved my money and found a car to purchase–a 1940 LaSalle for $75. I took it for a test drive and when I drove it home, my Dad said that no teen-ager needed a car and we took it right back to the dealer. He did allow me to do some work and maintenance on the family cars. I didn’t purchase a car until I graduated from college and went off to graduate school. The car was a 1947 Pontiac, and ironically, I paid $75 for it.
Exactly! Just about every innovation in automotive technology has come from people who started out tinkering on old cars as teenagers.
Keep in mind that muscle cars were really the first ones that were designed with efficiency in mind-- granted they used increased efficiency to go faster, but things like fuel injection, electronic ignition, and aerodynamic design all came from people who wanted to go faster, but wound up trickling down to people who want to go further on less energy. For you to deny owning a vehicle as a hobby is to deny the process of technological innovation.
And, as others have mentioned, the number of miles driven in cars older than 30 years old in this country are insignificant. Far more fuel is wasted on excessively long commutes, inefficient trip planning, etc. Also, I suppose you never travel by air, right? One long plane trip will increase your personal oil dependance (not to mention carbon footprint) as much as a whole year of driving a muscle car!
Muscle cars are not the cause of the worlds ills as they are comparatively few in number and most are not driven on a daily basis. The amount of fuel consumed is minute at the most.
Your thinking is skewed because you’re the one who claims that fuel and energy use is justifiable at ski resorts because it “promotes exercise”. This is your thinking; not mine.
In regards to Al Gore, that buffoon appeared at the University of Oklahoma last March to give a speech about global warming and (to go hand in hand with your opinion) “man’s wasteful use of fossil fuels”.
He flew in on a large private jet, was hauled in a stretch limo (far worse mileage than a muscle car) to the facility where he gave this speech.
Afterwards, he had dinner with the higher up muckety-mucks and collected a check for a cool 200 grand on the way out the door.
How much fuel do you think was consumed by his private jet getting there and the limo?
Do you think his jet and limo, which get far worse mileage and in the case of the jet, pollute far more than any muscle car, should also be hauled to the landfill?
I’m still curious about what kind of vehicle you drive.
My car as most cars from this era spend 9-10 months of the year in the garage. I like all of my friends that own these cars maintain them in peak running condition.
My chevelle sits for a week, maybe 2 at a time this time of year. Come October/November, I MIGHT put it away for the winter, but will also take it out maybe once a month during that time to give it a bit of a run when the roads are clear. I have no problem hopping in it and just trotting to the grocery store, or just a cruise around town. No offense to you and your Dart, or any of the other garage queen owners out there, but I bought and fixed up a car, not a museum piece. Sure the clear coat has some spots in it where it’s starting to peel off, paint is chipped in a couple places, but hey, it’s a car, it’s meant to be driven. I got the 283 2bbl v-8 with a 2 speed powerglide, dual 2" exhaust pipes with glasspack mufflers. It’s not the most effecient setup, but it is one of the most basic, and easiest to maintain. She’s come a long way from when I first bought her, but it’s been worth it.
One guy at work has a baby blue '64 chevelle which he’s driven to work more than I have.
I think you really do have good intentions, but your approach is not very sophisticated. The U.S. is not going to fix it’s energy situation by applying “social pressure” to whichever group of consumers you happen to feel is wasting energy. The muscle car guys can point at the boaters, the boaters can point at the RVs, the RVs can point at private airplanes, and the pilots can point back at the muscle cars. Aside from making everyone feel better about themselves, absolutely nothing is accomplished.
In the real world, “social pressure” is not going to stop people from doing what they enjoy (i.e., the muscle car guy may be interested in what the other muscle car guys think, but he could not care less what you think). I’m not sure why you have chosen “muscle cars” as your issue, but I very much doubt that a few thousand muscle cars are making noticeable impact on the overall U.S. energy consumption. If you drive down the average road, for every one “muscle car” you will see about 50 other vehicles that get similar mileage. I think you’ve picked the wrong windmill to tilt.
If you really want to reduce U.S. energy consumption, there is exactly one answer that will work; make energy more expensive. I know all the downsides of that approach, but that is the only realistic answer. Americans will continue to do what they want as long as they can afford it. Realistically, if gas is $6 per gallon, this teenager will not buy the muscle car. The price of used SUVs, RVs, boats, and muscle cars may drop a little, and fewer new ones may be sold; but folks that can afford them will still drive what they want. On average you will reduce energy consumption, but it will because more lower income people will be taking the bus. Honestly, I will drive whatever I want regardless of fuel cost or whatever “social pressure” you can apply. Sorry if that’s not what you want to hear.
Maybe you should focus your energy on overall energy policy instead of comments made on a radio comedy show?
Couple of points here. You are wanting all muscle cars scrapped based solely on your biased opinion of their alleged bad fuel mileage.
Just to take two, why are you not wanting RVs (10 MPG maybe?) or boats (less than that) also consigned to the same scrap pile?
My neighbor has a boat with a carbed Chevy 350 and he gets about 3-4 MPG with it.
There is one whale of a lot more RVs/Boats/fuel consumption than there is with muscle cars.
Here’s a poser for you. The EPA fuel mileage on a Subaru Tribeca (you know, the green company and green cars that everyone loves) is 21 MPG on the highway.
The old 1959 Corvette I had (283 HP w/4 barrel carb) would get 16 MPG in town and 21 MPG on the highway at a 70 MPH cruise, and that’s with a 4:11 Posi rear end.
In today’s world a gear conversion to a highway friendly 3.08 would easily bump that figure up to 25 or more.
Which car is more fuel friendly; the Subaru or the Vette?
bscar:
No offense taken but my Dart is by no means a garage or trailer queen. I live in the great Pacific NorthWest where it rains alot. This rain limits my ability to drive the car as it sits in primer awaiting paint.
I am also in the process of putting together another 69 Dart slant 6 car. I built a 300 horsepower slant 6 for it but the trans did not hold up for more then 2 weeks. So the 340 sits again awaiting its turn at paint.
Nice Chevelle, enjoy driving it and don’t worry about fuel consumption.