OctaneZ28

iTrader: (6)

America’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the latest organization to speak up against the current horsepower war raging between carmakers. The group wants an end to the development of high horsepower models because of the negative impact they have on the environment. Instead they hope to see carmakers promote greener vehicles and work closer with ‘green-thinkers’ to create much cleaner fleets.

The EPA was recently put in charge of regulating emissions from cars by the U.S. congress and right now they want a shift in focus, Wards Auto reports. Speaking at a recent press conference, EPA official Margo Oge said there must be “an end to the horsepower arms race among auto makers and replace it with another different kind of a race, a race to produce the most affordable and desirable, low carbon-vehicle each year.”

The carmakers are trying but at the same time they’re sending mixed messages. Take GM for example. At the recent Detroit Auto Show it displayed the new Cadillac Provoq electric concept, and next to this was the 500+hp CTS-V and Corvette ZR1 muscle cars. A similar story could be told for most other major brands.

Instead of a horsepower race, Oge hopes carmakers will focus on a new green race to spark technological change. Already we’re witnessing the rush for plug-in hybrid technology and Oge says the same can happen for other alternatives. Probably the best of example of a green race is the Automotive-X Prize to create a 100mpg production car. Although it’s still in the early stages there will soon be numerous potential designs for ultra-efficient cars spawned from the challenge.

Carmakers are starting to get the message. Last week an AMG exec described how his company is happy with the current level of power and isn’t seeking to squeeze more performance from engines. But at the end of the day such high horsepower cars sell in extremely limited numbers and they’re usually driven much less than your average family sedan as well so their contribution to the environment could be considered very low risk. These are the cars that also attract the most attention at car shows, so it’s safe to assume the big power figures are here to stay for a little while longer.

LAME!!

The consumer market demand should determine the cars we are able to buy, not the government.

What's next?
Do they wanna control the hours we sleep? the food we eat? the clothes we wear?

BIG GOVERNMENT FTL!

qqwqeqwrqwqtq

I could be wrong but I don't think the high hp models such as zo6/viper/etc have worse fuel consumption than the large trucks and suvs that greatly outnumber them.

MeentSS02

iTrader: (11)

Hang on there chief...let's not go bringing logic into this argument.

Hydramatic

He's right.

We need our trucks to get better gas mileage, yet still be usable for work. Diesels are an excellent way to go, but I honestly would suggest that our trucks be DOWN-sized. Face it, the Tundra and Ram are just too damn big. If you compare an eighties C1500 to today's Silverado, you'll notice that the new one is substantially larger. I personally don't think that full sizers need to be THAT big. Hell, I don't think 3500 dually's need to be as big as they are, but that's how people want them made.

Take a tug boat for example. It doesn't have to be as big as the cruise ship it's pushing to do the work it needs to get done. Neither do pickup trucks. The only concession I will make is that, for some of the folks who use them, the bed does need to be able to haul a good amount of crap, but that doesn't necessarily mean the whole truck has to be that wide, just the bed.

We need to start making our trucks smaller, but fit them with better means to do work with, aka bigger tires, brakes, engines, stronger trannies, but make the whole package more compact.

SUV's just need to keep on dying until all that is left is the Jeep line again. That's the only real SUV left anyway(Blazer, Bronco, and Ramcharger are no longer with us...)

Jon @ Speed Inc

iTrader: (2)

Isn't ALMS running E85 and E100 this season?

The thing that bugs me is that the special ZR1's and Vipers .... and all the other 500+ HP vehicles are produced in such small batches. Not only that, but sure as hell not driven 10,000-20,000 miles a year.

OSU-53

LOL! Unfortunately, this about sums it up. Groups like EPA and other environment-friendly organizations don't want to listen to logic, they just want us all to have our cars run on hemp. It's ridiculous that the government is telling us what we can and can't drive rather than us telling the automakers what we WANT to drive. Why should we ever listen to one damn thing groups like this say? One year warmer oceans lead to more hurricanes, the next year warmer oceans lead to less hurricanes. How in the corn-fed hell are we ever supposed to believe one ounce of **** that comes out of an environmentally friendly person's mouth? I don't, because, as has been said, they don't speak nor think logically.

DrkPhynx

Exactly. It's all double speak and conflicting demands. They want us driving 100mpg cars, but they keep upping the safety requirements each year, and all that bracing and all those airbags (and other safety systems) weigh a lot, and weight is the anti-mpg.

Not only that, but the claims for the reasons behind these pushes are inconsistent and irrational as well. Sometimes you hear they want us to be less dependent on foriegn oil - ok, great, so why are they not pushing for diesel along side the higher gasoling mpg req's as that would allow us to better (more efficiently) utilize each and every barrel of crude we buy (efficiency comes in many flavors) - nevermind that diesels get better mpg than gas any day of the year. Also, why aren't they pushing the infrastructure for ethanol as well? Yes, it's not a replacement fuel, but the very idea of seeking for an across the board fuel replacement is flawed thinking from stem to stern. Gas + Ethanol + Diesel + pure electric = MUCH less demand on gasoline alone (if we can balance out the percentages, at least a little).

Then you hear that they want to reduce "carbon emissions". The evil Carbon Dioxide... gasp, shock, horror, oh noes!!1!!11 These same people then proceed to claim they want to HELP nature and that's what drives them. EXCEPT, there's the "inconvenient truth" (inconvenient to them at least) that CO2 is kinda necessary for plant life, and it to them what O2 is to us, and it's only by the presence of CO2 and the plants that live off of it that we HAVE O2 in the first bloody place. And the supplemental to that - where is plant life the most abundant? Where it's the WARMEST. And life in general was also more abundant in the distant past when the planet was MUCH hotter (all without evil SUVs and gasoline use).

You know.... a cynic could sugges that they actually want to destroy nature and keep us dependent on foriegn oil and are simply trying to reduce current consumption to account for (the out of control) population growth so that there is no backlash and we're still chained to the gas pump for decades, if not centruies to come.

I'm not so sure they are intelligent enough to be that cunning, and most of the moonbats really honestly beleive they are "helping the planet" while actually promoting policies that harm it.

JD_AMG

What I love about this whole thing is the EPA seems to be ignoring some major things here.
1.) You know those hydrogen cars that produce only water vapor? Guess what? Water vapor is a green house gas!
2.) Where do you think the power for those "plug-in" hybrid cars are coming from? Big, polluting plants, which will pollute more if we all are trying to power ours cars by them.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

We need to take action as consumers, and NOT buy the ultra-green econo-crap boxes that the EPA would love the OEMs to sell us. There will be a new division in this nation in the coming years.....between people who enjoy their freedom of choice, and people who are sheep and fully willing to give up that freedom. This has been going on for decades now, in many other ways. In recent years it’s hitting our hobby, and people will need to make a decision. Which side will you be on? Freedom of choice, or forced into government mandated green-machines that resemble a toaster oven, and offer all the driving pleasure of a tricycle?

I choose freedom of choice. I don’t want to be told what foods I can eat, what light bulbs to use in my house, what car to drive to work or for pleasure, how often I can have sex with my wife, or how often I can cut my grass. I like options, and I enjoy a free consumer market, where people can buy what/when/how much they choose. I am an American, I enjoy American muscle cars, and I am NOT ashamed to say so. I should have the right to buy them, and the auto industry should have the right to sell them. The EPA is (in my eyes) a communist organization, trying to force excessive and unnecessary government will on the consumer sector.

All we can do is speak with our wallets.

I don’t want to turn this into a government debate, but personally I have very little respect for many of our leaders, and zero respect for the EPA. Why focus on specialty high performance cars that are typically sold in small quantities and get better MPG than SUVs anyway? It’s a communist agenda to force us all into driving ONE type of car. A nasty, green, conformist, appliance-like object that invokes all the individual emotional response one would typically expect from a can of caffeine free diet Coke.

Jakes Dad

Who is the EPA and who are the theys spoken about in the above posts?

Lets all clap our hands together at 12 noon on Wednesday and HOPE someone comes up with the knowledge to build that 100 mpg vehicle everyone wants to drive and would love to own.

When I was in grade school we learned to hide under our desks because of the fear some evil empire was going to try and blow us away. Today our fears are different, but there are many still saying the END IS COMING. Or we need to do this to prevent the end from coming.

The end is coming, it's the responsibility of folks in my age group to leave something for our kids their kids and you. The problems today has been caused by those in my age group. The EPA is here today because we allowed it. The THEYS are sent to state capitals and Washington to represent us as a district or state. If we don't like what we are hearing then each of us is responsible for changing it.

An old man and his dog!

p.s. I can no longer smoke when I eat, nothing I eat is safe, my list of things I need to do is much longer than the list I have completed. I pay money to go to doctors who keep telling me what I am doing wrong, go figure!!

98 T/A raptor

iTrader: (2)

Them damn treehugger's have nothing better to do then ruin a good thing. Well I guess we will be telling our kid's and grandkids about the good old days when cars had power when we find on sitting in a field

Hydramatic

Like I've said before, I don't care if it gets 100mpg and puts out no emissions, just so long if it's fast. If it can be super-economical and green at the same time as it's fast and fun to drive, and doesn't look like some ****ty jellybeanmobile, I'll buy it.

Make an affordable Viper Hybrid, I'll be all over it.

WECIV

Sports cars are made in such small batches it should not be the EPA's concern. Not only that modern LS engines are very eco-friendly.

And, global warming is a good thing...6k yrs ago Florida was covered in ice
Global warming is a part of nature...we can no more control it than how many yrs we are going to live.

W

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

Sorry, but I disagree.

A daily driver mid-sized car that gets 100mpg and does nothing to hurt the environment? Great. No problem there. But a muscle car without internal combustion? Without the sounds and smells and feel of a REAL engine? Hell no. Not for me. You want to make my daily commuter car better for the planet? Fine, lets do it. But leave my weekend toys the hell alone. DON'T FU(K WITH MY HOBBY, PRESENT OR FUTURE. I see no reason for the EPA to involve themselves in a segment of cars that's such a small percentage of sales. High powered V8 cars are so rare compared to the average vehicle on the road, you wouldn't even put a noticeable dent in environmental issues by removing them from a car maker's lineup.

I want affordable performance. I don't want some 500hp non-emissions car that costs $100,000 just to "save the planet" for the few thousand miles per year I'll probably drive it.

People can call me old fashioned, call me self-centered, call me anti-environmental; I don't care. Those are just the ramblings of the leftist nutjobs like most EPA representitives.

IMO, the EPA = another example of modern communism. In theroy, the EPA is a great idea and a needed organization. But in pratice, they tend to suck.

1998LS1SS

iTrader: (8)

Im a full time student at UC Berkeley (CAL). I hate eco friendly tree huggers that that dont realize that camping out on oak trees on campus property is costing the government, yet alone, my tuition money nearly half a million dollars to babysit their ignorant, pot head smoking asses because they think saving a couple of trees would change the world.

I hate overhearing conversations as i walk threw the Berkeley campus about how trucks/fast cars are ruining the air quality and thus making it hard for them to sleep at night.

I hate going to work for the campus police department, changing out into my part time/paid community service officer uniform and walking up to the ****ty plastic excuse of a car Prius. Since when do police departments join the race to helping oversea world powers? As if we need anymore handicaps.

I hate the fact that the EPA gets millions of dollars funded to them to come up with a document that "oh i think high horsepower cars are the reason for global warming....we should prevent American companies from making them anymore...our new goal for the year is to get this bill passed in before the world burns inside out" and they get millions of dollars to come up with that sorry excuse for a researched, analyzed, surveyed from ignorant hippies, goal for the future.

In the end we are the ones who are funding them and get screwed over. "We" as in the people smart enough to realize that good gas mileage and great power are not antonyms all the time.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

^

It's a shame that more people in CA don't think like you.

CA is a beautiful state with a $hithole government and too many liberals that haven't a clue about what it would really take to "save the world", or what is really wrong with the world in the first place. It's sad really.

1998LS1SS

iTrader: (8)

Tell me about it....

Hydramatic

Agreed, but I think you missed the part where I said "affordable".

Besides, If old farts can get away with driving their fifties-era cars around with leaded fuel additive, we are going to be able drive around 90's F-Bodys for a while.

I pretty much agree with you though. On the other hand, I enjoy ALL types of fast, not just gasoline fast. Get me a car that thrills me like a rollercoaster, and I'll buy it if I can afford it is all I'm saying.

1970judge

iTrader: (12)

My exact thoughts. MY Z28 got JUST as good MPG than my mom's, at the time, SUV.

RPM WS6

iTrader: (3)

My LS1 Z28s get the same mileage, on average, as my L36 (3.8L V6) sedan does.