Re: Perception

["Jim Blair" <carnuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

A: There were far too many "Love Canals" and "3 mile island" as well as 
other super polluted (Any Hanford downwinders here? Raise your tumors) areas 
that needed cleaning after big business was done with them here. Now it's 
spreading to other parts of the world and a large part of that is 
autobuilder related.
   As for no emissions in Japan, they are so tuned into it that they give 
tax breaks for people to buy new cars and as it ages, the taxes and licenses 
go up (it's been that way since the '70s. I got a 40,000 mile used motor for 
the Mazda race car I had for less than the parts to rebuild one! And that 
was '77!)
   As for Vegas, I repowered several of them with Chevette motors and auto 
overdrive (with the 4.10 axle from a standard car) and the fuel economy was 
decent (20 around town and 32 highway) and the power didn't suffer unless 
the car ran fully loaded into the higher altitudes. Same goes for the Pinto 
with Cortina 1.6L (inverted hemi GT motor) and 5 speed. I ran rings around a 
lot of higher "performance" V8 cars and still got at least twice the fuel 
economy. I did a lot of suspension tricks to get it to ride well (for a 
Pinto. More like the newer Mustangs)
   That's why I wish I had the time and energy to put the 2.45L AMC 4 cyl 
with TBI into an AMC car with O/D. After having several of these motors, 
even with high mileage, they have been a wonder with the right gearing. 
Perhaps a Gremlin X'terminator or 4x4 SX4. Even the bulky Eagle wagon would 
run well with one of these motors as a commuter mobile. Run the AW4 Jeep 
auto O/D (2WD in cars or 4x4 in Eagles) with 4.10 gears and you have a 
little powerhouse that's not too hard on fuel. I don't know what the later 
MPFI economy is like, but for a commuter car, you don't need massive amounts 
of power MOST of the time.
   People deride me because I run a 304 in my tow rig ('73 J4000 with tired 
TH400 and Borg Warner Quadratrac with 16% O/D and part time kit installed. 
3.73 gears with full float hubs at all 4 corners and 33" tires) but I get 12 
mpg in town and almost 20 on the highway, loaded or empty. (I got 17 mpg 
with a car on tow dolly behind and another loaded on top of the box over a 
200 mile stretch at 60 mph average)
   Now I am looking at getting an M715 frame with 10 or 12 foot deck to put 
a car on top and another on a stinger behind. The deck will be lighter than 
the original steel box but that weight savings will probably be taken up 
with extra frame, winch, etc. (Now how did I come around to this? Oh yeah! 
Purpose built vehicles that should've been made, but weren't)


From: John McEwen <moparrr@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Perception
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-id: <p06110401be995a61d4b6@[192.168.2.150]>

While it's nice to blame the big companies and we know that there are
many reasons to blame them, they are not solely to blame for the
current mess.

The seeds of the problem lie back in the '60s and were begun (rightly
so) by Ralph Nader and what he represented.  The root of the problem
lies in LA and So. Cal. generally.

The flower power movement germinated in part due to the
military-industrial complex which was outed at that time, brought
emphasis and recognition to the cause of the environment - which up
to that time had been simply something to plunder.  Add in the
"Smoggy Day in LA Town" and the ravages of war on the economy,
followed by the gas crises of the '70s and you have the beginnings of
the end of the American auto industry and the American economy.

The manufacturers could not do everything at once.  They could not
design and produce anti-pollution measures, meet the influx of
quality, inexpensive cars from Japan, and develop brilliant new
engine and chassis technology to meet the CAFE standards imposed
during the same decade - all the while  building attractive modern
designs.

The costs were enormous and the assistance minimal.  Instead of
recognizing the problems and helping to overcome them, the American
people passed more laws then went out and bought Hondas, Toyotas and
Datsuns.  They voted with their check books and US Cars Inc. lost the
battle.  The enthusiast car magazines savaged the domestics and
shovelled praise on anything foreign which was easy when they
couldn't contribute to the solution.

AMC collapsed, Chrysler went to the wall while GM and Ford built
crappy - desperately down-sized, unattractive lumps with poor
performance and economy but clean tail pipes.  Japan offered
reliability, economy and performance while General Bullmoose offered
"Colonnade Hardtops", Opera Windows and Mustang II..

Europe and Japan went right on building cars in homelands where
environmental protection was unheard of.  How many of you realize
that Britain has only just recently abandoned leaded fuel?  How many
of you realize that in Europe at least 60% of all new cars are sold
with diesel engines - and they're not slow, noisy or smelly - or
could be sold in California?  North America responsibly encourages
hybrids while Europe has only recently discovered the environment.
British car enthusiasts flutter about paying for "lead-free" cylinder
heads while we worry about meeting the CAFE standards for 2010.

While we were fussing with bumper standards, the Euro/Japanese
complex was making money shoving the same old technology out the
doors everywhere but in NA.  Instead of meeting the challenge, we
paid them to build factories here so that they could avoid paying
import duties.  The payoff was jobs for small-town USA, Mexico and
Canada.  Remember when Flint and Buick meant the same thing?
Remember Oldsmobile?

While the US manufacturers were inventing catalytic convertors,
exhaust gas recycling, electronically-controlled carburetors, and a
myriad of other gadgets, the rest of the world was spending a much
higher proportion of their larger profit on making their vehicles
more reliable and of higher quality.  They then built those cars in
the US using US-developed solutions to meet US laws.

As sales of Japanese cars rose dramatically, spurred by pricing and
quality, all the US manufacturers could offer was size, boring style,
lack of performance, poor economy and even poorer reliability -
created by the great amount of new technology required to meet a
problem which didn't affect the part of the car the owner was
concerned with. except in a negative way..

When the US tried to build small economy cars, what they produced was
scaled-down big cars - still using the out-of-scale components from
those big cars.  Let's not forget Pinto and Vega.  They sold millions
of them, but the only real feature they offered was price and a kind
of dubious economy.  Compare a Vega to a Datsun 510.  A Toyota
Corolla to a Pinto.  No contest.  But don't blame the manufacturers -

forced to keep investors happy with endless profit figures.