Death of the Muscle Car II
01-02-08, 01:29 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: California
Posts: 6,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Death of the Muscle Car II
OK, so I realize that most of the people here weren't alive during the heyday of the muscle car or so it's demise but the question is are we ready for a replay? If you were alive during the 60s you saw the muscle car craze and experienced a revolutionary decade. But in the land of autos, it was eventually followed by the doldrums of the later 70s and 80s. In case you weren't around, insurance premiums had as much to do with the demise of the muslce car as anything. It timed with an oil crisis and the institution of pollution (and bumper) requirements and wound up with a generation of absolutely awful autos. Today we have cars that are in every way superior to the muscle cars of the 60s but outside forces are once again building up to change autos. Anyone can walk into a MB dealership and with a big enough checkbook walk out with a 600hp street car. While mileage isn't quite as poor as it was in the 60s, it isn't much better for the high hp cars either.
If it were one thing that was causing changes in autos in the 60s, things would have probably stayed on the course they were on. Unfortunately there were several factors that all piled up at the same time. We just had oil futures go over $100/bbl and gasoline in Cali will definitely be over $4 a gallon this summer. The article that follows was recently run in The Economist and I found it thought provoking that the currrent generations of M's and AMGs may be close to the top for quite some time. I do think that technology can help but I have no delusions about a 350hp two cylinder enginer magically appearing in a Civic in ten years that is going to get 30mpg. Internal combustion engines are heat based and we have pretty good efficiency today, infinitely better than in the 60s, and it just costs gasoline (heat source) to make power. Oftentimes we can only see the tipping points after we go through them but in this case, we may be able to see this one coming.
In any event, here is the long article:
"The European car industry
Collision course
Dec 19th 2007 | MUNICH AND STUTTGART
New European Union emission rules are bad news for Germany's carmakers
IF BALI failed to produce much besides cop-outs and compromises, at least the European Commission showed this week that it means business when it comes to tackling carbon emissions. Transport-related CO2 emissions in the European Union grew by one-third between 1990 and 2005 and now constitute 27% of the EU total. Of these, the commission reckons, cars and vans are responsible for about half.
On December 19th, as The Economist went to press, the commission was due to publish its final proposals for cleaning up Europe's cars. Although it will be at least a year before they become law and there is still scope for some of the details to change—both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers will want their say—there is now little doubt that in only a few years' time European carmakers will have to meet the world's strictest CO2-emission standards.
At present Europe's cars emit an average of about 160 grams of CO2 per kilometre (g/km). There has been some reduction since carmakers were last threatened with legislation a decade ago, but progress has been painfully slow—about 1.5% a year rather than the 3% needed to meet the voluntary target of 140g/km by 2008 that the industry agreed to a few years ago. The commission is therefore insisting that by 2012, the fleet-average emissions from new cars sold in the EU must not exceed 130g/km, with another 10g/km reduction coming from other sources, such as low rolling-resistance tyres, more efficient air-conditioning and greater use of biofuels.
The proposals have split Europe's car industry down the middle. The French and the Italians, represented by PSA Peugeot Citroën, Renault and Fiat, have so far been fairly sanguine. In 2006 their fleets, heavily biased towards fuel-efficient small cars, averaged 142-147g/km. It will not be easy for them to meet the new rules without increasing the cost of their cheap, low-margin cars, but they are close enough to be confident that they can get there.
For the Germans it is a different matter. Volkswagen makes plenty of small cars, including the BlueMotion Polo, with emissions of 99g/km—even less than the 104g/km of a Toyota Prius hybrid. Its fleet-average emissions have actually been rising slightly, however, because of the recent success of its Audi brand. But it is the two premium marques that Audi competes against, Mercedes-Benz and BMW, that feel most threatened by the commission's plans. Mercedes makes the compact A-class, its parent Daimler makes the tiny Smart, and BMW has the Mini, but their brands are synonymous with big, powerful cars that promise luxury and high performance. Mercedes props up the 2006 emissions league table with a fleet average of 188g/km, and BMW is next from bottom with 184g/km.
BMW has at least been making an effort to burnish its environmental credentials. As well as reducing the weight of its cars, it is now extending across its range a package of fuel-saving tricks called “Efficient Dynamics”. This brings together the latest engine technologies with energy-saving auxiliary units, such as alternators and coolant pumps, automatic start-stop (to shut the engine down in stationary traffic) and regenerative braking. As a sign of what can be achieved, the 2-litre diesel in its new 3-series cars produces a healthy 177 brake horsepower (bhp) with emissions of just 128g/km. In 2006 BMW was one of the fastest-improving European carmakers, and Efficient Dynamics may push it to the top of the league in 2008.
By contrast, Mercedes still seems to be in a state of denial. It has heavily promoted its BlueTec technology, but that is primarily designed to deal with clean-air regulations in America (which have limited the sales of diesel cars), not to meet European CO2 rules. Along with BMW, General Motors and Chrysler, it has developed a new hybrid system called Two-Mode. But this is an expensive option that is likely to find its way only slowly into the firm's sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) and bigger saloons.
Meanwhile, both BMW and Mercedes continue to build cars that are bigger than the ones they replace and have ever more powerful engines. BMW is about to launch the X6, a rival to Porsche's grotesque (Their description, not mine - RON430) Cayenne SUV, which will be available with a 408bhp twin-turbo V8. For its part, Mercedes seems intent on offering high-performance versions of every vehicle it makes, even shoehorning a 6.3-litre engine into its mid-size C-class saloon.
Both firms insist that as long as customers want such cars, they will build them, particularly as they are highly profitable and popular in export markets such as America, Russia and China. They also point out, correctly, that removing their high-end models entirely from the European market would have only a minimal impact on carbon emissions, because they are a tiny proportion of the overall fleet. They argue that the makers of small cars, which sell so many more vehicles, should have to do more to reduce emissions—perhaps by reducing their fleet averages well below the EU's proposed 130g/km limit.
Intensive lobbying by BMW and Mercedes, with support from the EU's industry commissioner, Günter Verheugen (who happens to be German), and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has had some effect. To the fury of green campaigners, the commission has agreed to a “weight dispensation” that will allow makers of heavier cars (ie, the Germans) to produce higher fleet-average emissions.
The commission is determined not to let the premium carmakers off the hook, however, so much will depend on the slope of the weight/CO2 graph. The most grossly polluting vehicles may not be numerous, but if they do not attract stiff penalties the emission rules will lose all credibility. The commission would like to impose fines of €95 ($137) per car per gram on emissions exceeding 130g/km. Without any weight allowance, the existing Mercedes fleet would attract a penalty of about €5,500 a vehicle. In practice the final figure will be lower. But the commission is adamant that although it does not want to destroy the German carmakers' business, they must be under real financial pressure to develop and implement radical fuel-saving technologies.
Even though it is clear what new technologies will be needed (smaller engines, more efficient automatic transmissions, various kinds of hybrid and greater use of biofuels) the Germans will struggle. Given that a new car takes five to seven years to develop, new technologies cannot be incorporated straight away, they argue. A further problem, according to Ricardo, an automotive consultancy, is that there are not enough engineering resources to go round. As things stand, the Germans have no hope of avoiding substantial fines unless they are given longer to comply and are prepared to change their mix of models. Neither looks likely."
If it were one thing that was causing changes in autos in the 60s, things would have probably stayed on the course they were on. Unfortunately there were several factors that all piled up at the same time. We just had oil futures go over $100/bbl and gasoline in Cali will definitely be over $4 a gallon this summer. The article that follows was recently run in The Economist and I found it thought provoking that the currrent generations of M's and AMGs may be close to the top for quite some time. I do think that technology can help but I have no delusions about a 350hp two cylinder enginer magically appearing in a Civic in ten years that is going to get 30mpg. Internal combustion engines are heat based and we have pretty good efficiency today, infinitely better than in the 60s, and it just costs gasoline (heat source) to make power. Oftentimes we can only see the tipping points after we go through them but in this case, we may be able to see this one coming.
In any event, here is the long article:
"The European car industry
Collision course
Dec 19th 2007 | MUNICH AND STUTTGART
New European Union emission rules are bad news for Germany's carmakers
IF BALI failed to produce much besides cop-outs and compromises, at least the European Commission showed this week that it means business when it comes to tackling carbon emissions. Transport-related CO2 emissions in the European Union grew by one-third between 1990 and 2005 and now constitute 27% of the EU total. Of these, the commission reckons, cars and vans are responsible for about half.
On December 19th, as The Economist went to press, the commission was due to publish its final proposals for cleaning up Europe's cars. Although it will be at least a year before they become law and there is still scope for some of the details to change—both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers will want their say—there is now little doubt that in only a few years' time European carmakers will have to meet the world's strictest CO2-emission standards.
At present Europe's cars emit an average of about 160 grams of CO2 per kilometre (g/km). There has been some reduction since carmakers were last threatened with legislation a decade ago, but progress has been painfully slow—about 1.5% a year rather than the 3% needed to meet the voluntary target of 140g/km by 2008 that the industry agreed to a few years ago. The commission is therefore insisting that by 2012, the fleet-average emissions from new cars sold in the EU must not exceed 130g/km, with another 10g/km reduction coming from other sources, such as low rolling-resistance tyres, more efficient air-conditioning and greater use of biofuels.
The proposals have split Europe's car industry down the middle. The French and the Italians, represented by PSA Peugeot Citroën, Renault and Fiat, have so far been fairly sanguine. In 2006 their fleets, heavily biased towards fuel-efficient small cars, averaged 142-147g/km. It will not be easy for them to meet the new rules without increasing the cost of their cheap, low-margin cars, but they are close enough to be confident that they can get there.
For the Germans it is a different matter. Volkswagen makes plenty of small cars, including the BlueMotion Polo, with emissions of 99g/km—even less than the 104g/km of a Toyota Prius hybrid. Its fleet-average emissions have actually been rising slightly, however, because of the recent success of its Audi brand. But it is the two premium marques that Audi competes against, Mercedes-Benz and BMW, that feel most threatened by the commission's plans. Mercedes makes the compact A-class, its parent Daimler makes the tiny Smart, and BMW has the Mini, but their brands are synonymous with big, powerful cars that promise luxury and high performance. Mercedes props up the 2006 emissions league table with a fleet average of 188g/km, and BMW is next from bottom with 184g/km.
BMW has at least been making an effort to burnish its environmental credentials. As well as reducing the weight of its cars, it is now extending across its range a package of fuel-saving tricks called “Efficient Dynamics”. This brings together the latest engine technologies with energy-saving auxiliary units, such as alternators and coolant pumps, automatic start-stop (to shut the engine down in stationary traffic) and regenerative braking. As a sign of what can be achieved, the 2-litre diesel in its new 3-series cars produces a healthy 177 brake horsepower (bhp) with emissions of just 128g/km. In 2006 BMW was one of the fastest-improving European carmakers, and Efficient Dynamics may push it to the top of the league in 2008.
By contrast, Mercedes still seems to be in a state of denial. It has heavily promoted its BlueTec technology, but that is primarily designed to deal with clean-air regulations in America (which have limited the sales of diesel cars), not to meet European CO2 rules. Along with BMW, General Motors and Chrysler, it has developed a new hybrid system called Two-Mode. But this is an expensive option that is likely to find its way only slowly into the firm's sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) and bigger saloons.
Meanwhile, both BMW and Mercedes continue to build cars that are bigger than the ones they replace and have ever more powerful engines. BMW is about to launch the X6, a rival to Porsche's grotesque (Their description, not mine - RON430) Cayenne SUV, which will be available with a 408bhp twin-turbo V8. For its part, Mercedes seems intent on offering high-performance versions of every vehicle it makes, even shoehorning a 6.3-litre engine into its mid-size C-class saloon.
Both firms insist that as long as customers want such cars, they will build them, particularly as they are highly profitable and popular in export markets such as America, Russia and China. They also point out, correctly, that removing their high-end models entirely from the European market would have only a minimal impact on carbon emissions, because they are a tiny proportion of the overall fleet. They argue that the makers of small cars, which sell so many more vehicles, should have to do more to reduce emissions—perhaps by reducing their fleet averages well below the EU's proposed 130g/km limit.
Intensive lobbying by BMW and Mercedes, with support from the EU's industry commissioner, Günter Verheugen (who happens to be German), and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has had some effect. To the fury of green campaigners, the commission has agreed to a “weight dispensation” that will allow makers of heavier cars (ie, the Germans) to produce higher fleet-average emissions.
The commission is determined not to let the premium carmakers off the hook, however, so much will depend on the slope of the weight/CO2 graph. The most grossly polluting vehicles may not be numerous, but if they do not attract stiff penalties the emission rules will lose all credibility. The commission would like to impose fines of €95 ($137) per car per gram on emissions exceeding 130g/km. Without any weight allowance, the existing Mercedes fleet would attract a penalty of about €5,500 a vehicle. In practice the final figure will be lower. But the commission is adamant that although it does not want to destroy the German carmakers' business, they must be under real financial pressure to develop and implement radical fuel-saving technologies.
Even though it is clear what new technologies will be needed (smaller engines, more efficient automatic transmissions, various kinds of hybrid and greater use of biofuels) the Germans will struggle. Given that a new car takes five to seven years to develop, new technologies cannot be incorporated straight away, they argue. A further problem, according to Ricardo, an automotive consultancy, is that there are not enough engineering resources to go round. As things stand, the Germans have no hope of avoiding substantial fines unless they are given longer to comply and are prepared to change their mix of models. Neither looks likely."
01-02-08, 02:54 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: California
Posts: 6,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Performance cars will almost assuredly always be around but by the late 70s/early 80s we had things like Z28 Camaros with 185hp (Corvettes didn't have much more) and BMW put out the 528e - for efficiency. Handling was reasonable for the time but power was rare and expensive. I am not so concerned that Turbo Civics or some such thing, would go away. I think one of the points of the article is that MB and BMW haven't exactly been trying to one up each other with efficiency lately and with the time lag to bring new technologies on line, they may be in some difficulty. Have to wonder if all those German cabbies will keep getting benzes if they have penalties that make our gas guzzler tax look trivial.
01-02-08, 08:12 PM
#4
Thought about this the other day when the new CAFE standards were signed into law, most people have accepted high insurance rates but just as we finally have high horsepower available to those who want it, here comes high oil prices and new CAFE standards that probably won't exempt trucks this time around to kill it, again, damn.
01-02-08, 08:40 PM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: California
Posts: 6,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought about this the other day when the new CAFE standards were signed into law, most people have accepted high insurance rates but just as we finally have high horsepower available to those who want it, here comes high oil prices and new CAFE standards that probably won't exempt trucks this time around to kill it, again, damn.
If you read the tea leaves at this time you would come to the conclusion that bimmer is going turbo and most of the others are counting on diesels or combination diesels to get corporate numbers in line. It ought to be fascinating to watch and see if they will keep cabin dimensions but start trimming weight to help things out. Usable performance is much more rewarding for the driver in lower weight models. I also have to believe that both bimmer and merc would prefer to have clearer results from cleaner/higher mileage technologies than we have today. I have a feeling that we are going to see some significant changes in autos in the five year time frame. I wouldn't be surprised to see a reduction in the number of vehicles with 300+ hp going along with it. Should be interesting.
01-03-08, 01:16 AM
#6
Seems every time we have a rebirth of performance the timing is bad, I hope you are wrong about the short(upcoming) life of domestic muscle cars but with the economy, gas prices, emissions regs, government involvement I suspect you may be right, once again they may end up being as rare as the 68-71's. 
Trending Topics
01-03-08, 06:10 AM
#10
Lexus Fanatic
I think one of the points of the article is that MB and BMW haven't exactly been trying to one up each other with efficiency lately and with the time lag to bring new technologies on line, they may be in some difficulty. Have to wonder if all those German cabbies will keep getting benzes if they have penalties that make our gas guzzler tax look trivial.
BTW, I'm one of the ones who is old enough to clearly remember the first demise of the muscle car and all that led up to it (HP/torque levels began dropping with retuned engines and low-lead fuel in 1971 and continued till the latter part of the decade, and engines were balky during cold starts and warmup because of lean-mixture carburators). Insurance, as you note, did play somewhat of a role in it, as these cars had shown themselves to be quite dangerous in the hands of immature and irresponsible drivers, but the main reason the ax fell on these cars was simply their poor fuel mileage and high emissions in an age when increasing air pollution and a more volatile oil market became a major concern.
Power levels were not the only things to suffer. As I just mentioned, cold-engine drivability was an even bigger concern. You had to start and re-start some engines a number of times while cold...they would balk, hesitate, stumble and stall repeatedly until warm (and some Japanese carburators of the time had surging and hesitation even when warm). Ford and Chrysler products sometimes required endless grinding of the starter to fire up. Carburator ice sometimes choked off the fuel supply during cold/damp conditions and caused stalling. The fuel-delivery and ignition systems of many of those cars, in short, was a MESS.....it was not truly solved until engine-control computers and EFI came along.
Last edited by mmarshall; 01-03-08 at 06:30 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
LexFather
Car Chat
6
05-12-04 08:41 AM