What Will Happen to Performance Cars If Obama Gets Reelected

SMITTY · Post by **SMITTY** » Sun. Sep. 16, 2012 1:11 am

Flashback to the mid 70's to late 80's, that's what. Expensive, slow, unreliable piles of *censored* everywhere ....

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/10-wimpiest-muscle-ca ... 3?page=all

RAYJAY · Post by **RAYJAY** » Sun. Sep. 16, 2012 1:56 am

really ????

we have the SHO taurus, SHO models comes exclusively with AWD and a twin-turbo 3.5L V6 making 365-hp and 350 lb-ft of torque., ( and yes the new ford police car is modeled off of the SHO, the police car has a lot better tune) Fuel economy is rated at 17/25-mpg. on the SHO

you have the new Camaro, mustang's just to name a few ..... the 70 to 80 were more of a technology problem than any thing else, beside that I would not want to go back to the older cars, so much better to work on the newer one's thank god for OBD II

freetown fred · Post by **freetown fred** » Sun. Sep. 16, 2012 7:14 am

That would be sarcasm--right????

I'm On Fire · Post by **I'm On Fire** » Sun. Sep. 16, 2012 8:00 am

Not entirely sure what that list has to specifically do with Obama..but ok.

The Chevy Citation? Seriously, the Citation was considered a muscle car? C'mon....it's a Chevy Citation. Ok, sure, the X-11 won some SCCA championships but it was never a muscle car.

That's like saying the Dodge Neon is a muscle car. No. Just doesn't work.

lsayre · Post by **lsayre** » Sun. Sep. 16, 2012 8:24 am

What will happen to performance cars if Obama gets reelected

They will continue to grow old and rust away.

Post by **Richard S.** » Sun. Sep. 16, 2012 8:42 am

I'm On Fire wrote:Not entirely sure what that list has to specifically do with Obama..but ok.

New MPG standards:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-57501855-54/oba ... -54.5-mpg/

After more than a year of negotiations between government agencies, auto manufacturers, and other interested groups such as the United Auto Workers, the Obama administration has finalized rules that will raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) to 54.5 mpg by 2025.

The administration had already set aggressive targets, previously calling for a CAFE of 35.5 mpg by 2016. As new advances in fuel-saving technologies showed that this target could easily be met, rules were drafted for the higher mark.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation devise the formula by which CAFE is calculated. The CAFE number takes into account all of the cars and light trucks produced in a model year by a manufacturer.

I think the biggest concern should be light trucks. Even if a high MPG could be achieved with the same power you're going to have smaller engines, smaller bearings, smaller everything........ The reliability of such truck used as a truck should be used is going to come into question.

As far as performance goes on small cars have you seen the HP rating on some of these small cars?

gaw · Post by **gaw** » Sun. Sep. 16, 2012 8:59 am

And it only gets better.

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 09, 2011
White House Announces First Ever Oil Savings Standards for Heavy Duty Trucks, Buses
Saving $50 billion in fuel costs and over 500 million barrels of oil

WASHINGTON – Today, President Obama will meet with industry officials to discuss the first of their kind fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas pollution standards for work trucks, buses, and other heavy duty vehicles and to thank them for their leadership in finalizing a successful national program for these vehicles.

By the 2018 model year, the program is expected to achieve significant savings relative to current levels, across vehicle types. Certain combination tractors – commonly known as big-rigs or semi-trucks – will be required to achieve up to approximately 20 percent reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2018, saving up to 4 gallons of fuel for every 100 miles traveled.

For heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, separate standards are required for gasoline-powered and diesel trucks. These vehicles will be required to achieve up to approximately 15 percent reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2018. Under the finalized standards a typical gasoline or diesel powered heavy-duty pickup truck or van could save one gallon of fuel for every 100 miles traveled.

Vocational vehicles – including delivery trucks, buses, and garbage trucks – will be required to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 10 percent by model year 2018. These trucks could save an average of one gallon of fuel for every 100 miles traveled.

With a wave of there magic wand.
Six years to improve big rig fuel economy 20%, what are they smoking.

I'm On Fire · Post by **I'm On Fire** » Sun. Sep. 16, 2012 9:02 am

Richard S. wrote:
I'm On Fire wrote:Not entirely sure what that list has to specifically do with Obama..but ok.
New MPG standards:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-57501855-54/oba ... -54.5-mpg/

After more than a year of negotiations between government agencies, auto manufacturers, and other interested groups such as the United Auto Workers, the Obama administration has finalized rules that will raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) to 54.5 mpg by 2025.

The administration had already set aggressive targets, previously calling for a CAFE of 35.5 mpg by 2016. As new advances in fuel-saving technologies showed that this target could easily be met, rules were drafted for the higher mark.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation devise the formula by which CAFE is calculated. The CAFE number takes into account all of the cars and light trucks produced in a model year by a manufacturer.
I think the biggest concern should be light trucks. Even if a high MPG could be achieved with the same power you're going to have smaller engines, smaller bearings, smaller everything........ The reliability of such truck used as a truck should be used is going to come into question.

As far as performance goes on small cars have you seen the HP rating on some of these small cars?

But, haven't they been pushing better gas mileage for a few years? I mean before Obama? It's really nothing new.

SMITTY · Post by **SMITTY** » Sun. Sep. 16, 2012 9:18 am

Richard & Gaw got my point. When you demand 35 mpg trucks, all kinds of things suffer. Remember the 80's? Remember the Chrysler K cars? Slow, unreliable, and not to mention UGLY, piles of *censored* ... but they got GREAT mileage!

That list is a flashback of what's to come given a 2nd Obama term. MPG standards were already in place, yes - Bush enacted some that I DON'T LIKE - but Obama has doubled down. Given his tendency to put his ideology above what is good for the nation economically, you can bet things will be worse than you can imagine.

Your new 6 liter Chevy will struggle to get on the highway at the newly mandated 55 mph speed limit --- remember that? I certainly do.

If you want mileage you can buy a Prius, Volt, or a Leaf. Don't tell US what mileage standards should be. If everyone starts buying Leafs, then I think manufacturers can take a hint & start producing & designing MORE of them. See, that's how a free-market system is SUPPOSED to work ....

Post by **Richard S.** » Sun. Sep. 16, 2012 9:21 am

I'm On Fire wrote:
But, haven't they been pushing better gas mileage for a few years? I mean before Obama? It's really nothing new.

Yes but it's the Democrats that typically support this to satisfy the Prius driving crowd. They don't go to the breaker to pick up coal in the pickup.

I don't necessarily have any issues with pushing for increased efficiency but only if you're not going to sacrifice power and reliability. Cost becomes another issue, they could probably meet these standards now without sacrificing power and reliability if they built a heavy duty truck out of titanium but who could afford it?

SMITTY · Post by **SMITTY** » Sun. Sep. 16, 2012 9:22 am

Well said Richard - and excellent points.

Post by **Richard S.** » Sun. Sep. 16, 2012 9:23 am

SMITTY wrote:Richard & Gaw got my point. When you demand 35 mpg trucks, all kinds of things suffer. Remember the 80's? Remember the Chrysler K cars? Slow, unreliable, and not to mention UGLY, piles of *censored* ... but they got GREAT mileage!

Smitty I really don't think it will be that much of an issue with cars. They are getting a lot of horsepower out of smaller engines and they aren't going to need the heavy duty build a truck requires.

SMITTY · Post by **SMITTY** » Sun. Sep. 16, 2012 9:30 am

True, but you know how government works ....

If a little is good, then alot must be better! They'll take that 250 hp 4 cylinder and make it get 85 mpg .... now you've got 100 hp in a car already weighed down with safety devices & structuring that now costs a fortune, because the company had to COMPLETELY redesign the engine, transmission & final gearing to make the package work. Of course, that cost will be passed onto the consumer, just like it was in the 80's.

Some of those shitty K cars were selling for close to $10k back then! I remember my ol' man - who bought new vehicles every 5 or 6 years like clockwork - saying he was done buying new until the auto industry got it's *censored* together. Then he went out and bought an '83 Escort ......

We put more repair dollars into that car by 30k miles than any car he had ever owned prior.

Dann757 · Post by **Dann757** » Sun. Sep. 16, 2012 9:38 am

I had a 91 Civic hatch for a couple years. That 20 year old car got 35 mpg. I could put my tools in the back and work out of it. I saw a smug yuppie in a Smart Car (fart car) the other day, didn't have time to point and laugh at the guy

They're trying to force Our great nation into failed european socialism and these tiny *censored* boxes are just the first raindrops in the hurricane.

Nobody talks about world overpopulation; it's doubled in my lifetime. If there was four billion less people in the world, there wouldn't be a resource problem. At least Romney/Ryan are serious about developing our energy independance; the exact opposite of NWObama's plan to make us a castrated mediocre pawn in his plan of wealth redistribution.

gaw · Post by **gaw** » Sun. Sep. 16, 2012 9:47 am

SMITTY wrote:True, but you know how government works ....

A fellow who worked for a government contractor explained how government thinks like this; “if it takes a woman nine months to have a baby it should take nine women one month to have a baby”