Get Ready to Kiss Your Chance at a V8 Goodby

CSIROC:
Whoa now...don't be telling people to go out and buy a Prius if they care about the environment...thats for the hypocrites who want to appear to be "green"...but just forget how damaging it is to the environment to get that nickel for those batteries.

Course...most public environmentalists are hypocrites...Al Gore anyone?

TurboTed:
Of course there's a huge middle ground between not caring about the environment at all and signing on to a 50+ m.p.g. CAFE and a roll-back of C02 emissions to EIGHTY PERCENT LESS than 1990!

Certainly a Prius is an ego-massaging, I'm-greener-than-thou, "feel good" bit o' kit, much like the original VW Beetle was more of an anti-materialism/pro-internationalist/"appliance" motorist fashion statement during the halcyon days of the Muscle Car '60s.

But I suspect that for those truly convinced that human activity is dooming the "planet" a little nickel mining pollution is a small price to pay for tons of reduced CO2 emissions.  As Chairman Mao (or was it Josef Stalin) said, "to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs." (I'll bet Obama's old friend Bill Ayers knows who said that)

Still, I think the Doc's point is valid.

If you think C02 emissions are such a big deal, clean up your own before you start legislating about mine. (Some really, really smart guy from Nazareth (not the rock group) came up with that timeless principle as I recall it . . . and some of the meddling, power-mad hypocrites conspired with an overbearing government to whack him . . . .)

I also think that we need to be responsibly vigilant.

Hacking off your cat con, trashing all your smog stuff and bribing the emissions inspector isn't too responsible when there are plenty of ways to go quick and fast without doing any of that.  

And pretending that we can "go along to get along" or that "everything will work out"  or that "it don't affect me because it's just politics"  or "we can just wait it out" or "I've already got mine, so who cares about anybody else" when there's a real risk that THIS TIME the greens are going to shut us down (or at least put a huge clamp-down on our lifestyle) isn't very vigilant.

I'm obviously a turbo guy, so I should want all of this because it will be a huge booster for turbocharging. But I can see how this could really hurt my "all motor" "comrades" (Hey we gotta get the new/old collectivist lingo down. Might as well get an early start . . . .)

Not sure why you felt the need to post this to me...

I'm keeping the cat on my Delta 88 (swapping in a 425)...heck I might just go ahead and tap the heads to run the original AIR setup...

I switched to a high flow cat on my IROC...never removed a single emissions control item...

I'm all for reducing impact on the environment...to a point.  But do not agree at all that a Prius in anyway is good for the environment...and that any educated environmentalist would honestly believe so.  Between the mining, the shipping of materials (oceanic shipping is HORRIBLE on the environment...regulating this would do more for reducing emissions than marginal gains on the automobile front), the manufacturing of the car itself, and STILL DRIVING the thing (the ONLY place its hybrid system helps is during stop and go traffic...its just as bad as the next commuter on the highway)...its absolutely terrible on the environment...like most cars.  A true environmentalist would walk  

And again...I agree there is a wolf...but don't agree he's at the gate.  No legislation proposed...heck the guy you are speculating about isn't even in office...

Forgive me for not panicking at the POSSIBILITY this legislation will be PROPOSED...    
68 Olds Cutlass ~ 350 Rocket
85 Delta 88 ~ 425 Rocket
02 Silverado 4X4 ~ 5.3L

CSIROC, the way I read Turbo Ted's post was that the cutting off of the "cat con" comment was directed at another earlier poster who was bragging that he scammed the Emissions Police with a "gutted cat."

While we're in the neighborhood, on the electric hybrid beat --

This just in.

Truth With Speedzzter has long advocated the concept of a high performance electric hybrid Ford Mustang.

However, instead of developing an such a game-changing halo car, Ford Motor Company has wasted Mustang’s period of exclusivity, mostly killed the SVT brand, and focused on expensive ripoffs in concert with Shelby, such as the wimpy Shelby GT and the Shelby GT500KR.

Now an aftermarket tuner may have taken up the challenge ofbuilding the high performance Mustang of the future.

Roush?** Nope.

Saleen? Nada.

SMS Supercars (Steve Saleen's new outfit)? Sorry.

Shelby? Surely you must be joking. . . . [continued at http://speedzzter.blogspot.com  
http://speedzzter.blogspot.com

Here's a copy of the SEMA ACTION NETWORK'S call to vote:
Drive the Vote Home!
Exercise Your Right to Support Those Who Support Our Hobby

Our hobby has much at stake in this election. On November 4, 2008, voters will elect thousands of state and local leaders, 11 governors, 435 members of Congress, 35 Senators and a new president. Each and every one of these elected officials has the ability to positively or negatively shape legislation affecting our hobby. SAN members are urged to exercise their right to vote and support pro-hobby candidates.

Election Day—November 4

Check With Your County Office for Voter Information and Poll Locations

THAT'S PRETTY WEAK! How about some guidance as to which candidates are "pro-hobby."   The National Rifle Association -- which is probably the gold standard for a grassroots one-issue interest group -- grades each candidate for federal and state offices on pro-Second Amendment rights issues.

Of course the NRA is probably a lot better funded than the SEMA ACTION NETWORK.  But a generic "call to go vote" without some direction as to HOW TO VOTE is almost useless.

SEMA isn't really on top of this yet.  
--------------------------------
460_BBF_Turbo-in-CC (formerly Dr511scj) "This guy has no life other than posting endlessly on carcraft.com." -- Car Craft, July 2005
-------
October 1, 2003: " I'm thinking a couple of...turbos, blowing through an old Powerstroke intercooler...on a Super Cobra Jet-head 460 would be mad cheap and make sick power."
-------
"I have no problem with your...talking to several versions of yourself...or pointing out our failure to do a turbo story ...." --Douglas "CC/Rambler" Glad

CSIROC" Not sure why you felt the need to post this to me...

I'm keeping the cat on my Delta 88 (swapping in a 425)...heck I might just go ahead and tap the heads to run the original AIR setup...

I switched to a high flow cat on my IROC...never removed a single emissions control item..."

Hey man, I wasn't raggin' on you. My comment "cat con" comment was directed at folks like ARB69400.  It sounds llike you're going above and beyond.

However, the current "no tampering" emission control regulatory theory makes no sense.

It forces builders to (1) construct emissions-exempt vehicles (kit car "Cobras," Street Rods, pre-1966 machines) that pollute more, or (2)spend huge sums on a few minor legal "EO" bolt-ons that don't yield enough "bang-for-the-buck",  or (3) build totally outlaw stuff (ripping out all the smog on a late model and hoping that you don't get caught).  

A reasonable system would make it easier and cheaper to manufacture emissions-legal parts, encourage retrofitting and alternative fuel conversions, and focus solely on what comes out of the tailpipe (and not whether all the factory equipment is unmolested or the engine isn't older than the chassis).  
*****
TURBO TED --Internationally known as the "John Force of the Yugo Racing Association."

Sergeant-at-Arms and immediate Past President of the SoAL Yugo Owners Group.

TurboTed:
CSIROC" Not sure why you felt the need to post this to me...

I'm keeping the cat on my Delta 88 (swapping in a 425)...heck I might just go ahead and tap the heads to run the original AIR setup...

I switched to a high flow cat on my IROC...never removed a single emissions control item..."

Hey man, I wasn't raggin' on you. My comment "cat con" comment was directed at folks like ARB69400.  It sounds llike you're going above and beyond.

However, the current "no tampering" emission control regulatory theory makes no sense.

It forces builders to (1) construct emissions-exempt vehicles (kit car "Cobras," Street Rods, pre-1966 machines) that pollute more, or (2)spend huge sums on a few minor legal "EO" bolt-ons that don't yield enough "bang-for-the-buck",  or (3) build totally outlaw stuff (ripping out all the smog on a late model and hoping that you don't get caught).  

A reasonable system would make it easier and cheaper to manufacture emissions-legal parts, encourage retrofitting and alternative fuel conversions, and focus solely on what comes out of the tailpipe (and not whether all the factory equipment is unmolested or the engine isn't older than the chassis).

Good points.  I'll buy that.  
68 Olds Cutlass ~ 350 Rocket
85 Delta 88 ~ 425 Rocket
02 Silverado 4X4 ~ 5.3L

The main problem with todays laws is that older cars can not be updated to run cleaner and still be legal with out jumping through tons of hoops and headaches.  Namely the obvious replacing a carburetor with an EFI system, but they're are other things too.  The final say should be the tail pipe, if the car's tail pipe says it meets and/or beats the original emission's requirement then it should be legal to drive on the road.  When I was in California and a college student I wanted to EFI my '77 Buick. I could easily get a V-8 to pass the HC, NOx and CO tail pipe emissions well under the Odd Fire 231's requirements, the only increase would be CO2 (which at the time wasn't considered an issue, and frankly as a geologist I don't consider it one now) from the larger displacement.  My milage would even go up.  Problem was as a student I didn't have the time or means to jump through the hoops.  By the time I did I moved to Nevada for work.  I'm going back and forth on installing cat's on my car, I think I will eventually, as well as get my EFI emissioned tuned on a chassis dyno, but I'm more concerned now with getting the car back on the road.  So my point is the laws should be written for the tail pipe, not the visual because that's the final result, which is I believe most of you are saying.  
-
The Silver Buick- '77 Skylark coupe w/ a Fuel Injected Buick 455&TKO-600, '72 Centurion Conv't - 455w/TH400, '67 T-bird 4Dr (suicide) w/428&C6. Needing to replace a '69 Firebird 400.

http://www.bangshift.com/forum/index.php?topic=6189.0

Some common-sense emission regulations would be good.

However, what we've got is a confederacy of power-mad bureaucrats, environmental lobbyists and techologically-ignorant elected politicians writing the rules.

A lot of the resistance to a PURELY "what comes out of the tailpipe" standard is that the bureaucrats and the environmentalists maintain that the annual post-sale emission inspections are not as detailed or rigorous as actual certification of new cars or emission-legal replacement parts.

The certification process is a lot more than a quick five minutes on a chassis dyno with a sniffer shoved up the tailpipe, such as the hated I/M 250 test that's required annually or bi-annually in emission "non-attainment" areas.

Here's just a taste of the complexity (WARNING: YOUR HEAD MIGHT JUST EXPLODE--and this is a layperson summary, not the actual mind-numbing regulations)

"The FTP-75 (Federal Test Procedure) has been used for emission certification of light duty vehicles in the U.S. Effective model year 2000, vehicles have to be additionally tested on two Supplemental Federal Test Procedures (SFTP) designed to address shortcomings with the FTP-75 in the representation of (1) aggressive, high speed driving (US06), and (2) the use of air conditioning (SC03).

The FTP-75 cycle is derived from the FTP-72 cycle by adding a third phase of 505s, identical to the first phase of FTP-72 but with a hot start. The third phase starts after the engine is stopped for 10 minutes. Thus, the entire FTP-75 cycle consists of the following segments:

cold start phase [Note that the vehicle sits overnight in a temperature and air flow controlled shed prior to the testing to insure scientific validity of the results]
transient phase
hot start phase.
The following are basic parameters of the cycle:

Distance traveled: 11.04 miles (17.77 km)
Duration: 1874 seconds Average speed: 21.2 mph (34.1 km/h).



The emissions from each phase are collected in a separate teflon bag, analyzed and expressed in g/mile (g/km). The weighting factors are 0.43 for the cold start, 1.0 for the transient phase and 0.57 for the hot start phase."

"The US06 Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) was developed to address the shortcomings with the FTP-75 test cycle in the representation of aggressive, high speed and/or high acceleration driving behavior, rapid speed fluctuations, and driving behavior following startup.

The cycle represents an 8.01 mile (12.8 km) route with an average speed of 48.4 miles/h (77.9 km/h), maximum speed 80.3 miles/h (129.2 km/h), and a duration of 596 seconds."

"The SC03 Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) has been introduced to represent the engine load and emissions associated with the use of air conditioning units in vehicles certified over the FTP-75 test cycle.

The cycle represents a 3.6 mile (5.8 km) route with an average speed of 21.6 miles/h (34.8 km/h), maximum speed 54.8 miles/h (88.2 km/h), and a duration of 596 seconds."

OBVIOUSLY, such a testing regime is ultra expensive (especially if you have to do it multiple times to pass) and could not be reasonably applied nationwide to individuals trying to "legalize" "consumer modified" vehicles.

So why the annual visual inpection and quick tailpipe sniff?

The theory of after-sale annualized visual inspection and a quick sniff of the tail pipe is based on the assumption of SAMPLING.  

In other words, the EPA presumes that if all the emissions systems are present and UNALTERED and the sample is within specified limits, then the vehicle probably would pass the whole FTP-75, USO6, and SC03 (if air conditioned), if it were so tested.

They also assume that if all the emissions stuff isn't there or if the car has been modified with parts affecting emissions that haven't been certified, that a quick sniff of the tailpipe isn't a scientifically-valid sample.

Ergo, the EPA's assumption that doing anything but keeping all the emissions hardware and installing only certified replacement parts is "tampering"

Of course the problem with the EPA's "all or nothing" approach is that it misses out on any environmental benefits of "substantial compliance."   A late model efi car with aftermarket high-flow cats that passes an I/M 240 test might not fully comply with the full-blown FTP-75, US06 and SC03 tests, but its emissions would clearly be substantially less than no cats on a carb'd, emissions-exempt vehicle.

The current policy chills innovation and reasonable efforts at substantial compliance.

All of this goes out the window, however, when they start regulating CO2, because there's simply no way to cut C02 emissions without cutting down on consumption of carbon-based fuel. Gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane, methanol, ethanol -- all produce C02 emissions in direct proportion to how much is burned.

It COULD BE WORSE, though.  We could have something like this hanging over us:ALL CARS OVER 18 YEARS OLD SHOULD BE SCRAPPED!

PRESS RELEASE:

18 YEARS OLD - AND OFF THE ROAD

A scheme to encourage the scrapping of old cars to increase the rate at which motorists trade them for newer, more fuel-efficient models, could achieve environmental benefits according to new research published today (17) by the Royal Automobile Club Foundation.

The report, Car Ownership in Great Britain*, concludes that financial encouragement for car owners to scrap older vehicles could encourage fleet renewal, but intervention must be done carefully if the vehicle market is not to be distorted. The report relates to use of vehicles but policy must also take account of the environmental implications involved in the manufacture of new vehicles.

The research shows that in the UK, to reduce emissions, the ideal age to incentivise car scrappage would be for 17-18 year old cars. Such a scheme would remove most of the last non-catalytic cars. Incentivising the scrappage of younger cars would only result in payment being made for cars which are going to be scrapped in large numbers anyway.

Encouraging motorists to switch to newer models is a vital part of the fight to cut carbon emissions from road transport. The average new car emits 3.8% less carbon than just 12 months ago (158.6g/km, down from 164.9g/km at the end of 2007) and 16.4% less than the in 1997 (189.8g/km)**.

Despite this, tax changes announced in the March budget, including the introduction of a "showroom tax," will make buying a new vehicle more expensive. The Treasury's decision to raise Vehicle Excise Duty retrospectively also increases the financial burden of owning the more fuel-hungry older cars, leaving motorists stuck with inefficient vehicles.

The credit crunch is also slowing the rate at which people buy new cars, with sales falling for the last five months***.

The RAC Foundation believes that a carefully-designed scrappage scheme would have a double benefit of boosting the new and second hand car industry, whilst helping to make road transport greener by removing the most-polluting vehicles from the road.

According to the report, cars are scrapped for four main reasons:-

· The car is too expensive to repair
· The car has been in an accident
· The car was not worth very much money
· The car had stopped working

Scrapped cars are not normally replaced by brand new models, but by vehicles typically three to four years younger than the ones scrapped. A vehicle purchased brand new typically replaces a three year old car which has been traded in on the basis of age and mileage. Most new cars are traded in within 4 years.

The Foundation commissioned the report after scrappage was recommended by the Environmental Audit Committee**** as a means of encouraging "lower income households ... to trade in their cars for low emission replacements," in order to offer an informed contribution to the debate.

Schemes can offer payments not linked to further action by the car owner, or payments conditional on purchase of a less-polluting newer car. The RAC Foundation's report concludes that in the UK, it would not be necessary to link the incentive to buying a new car as the natural dynamics of the car market will lead to the owners buying a car three or four years younger than the one scrapped, which in turn would lead to a ripple effect of car purchases up the age chain of the vehicle parc.

The Foundation has rejected the alternatives of higher taxes on older cars, calculated on the basis of their emissions; or more rigorous annual inspection routines which make older cars more expensive to maintain, as these will place a heavier financial burden on the owners of older cars, who tend to be lower income motorists in the first place.

Commenting, RAC Foundation Director Stephen Glaister said: "Making it affordable for motorists to scrap clapped-out cars and opt instead for a cleaner, more fuel-efficient and more reliable vehicle could be a way for the Government to support greener motoring. This study identifies a number of countries that have tried scrappage schemes and offers important new evidence to help design a balanced and effective scheme for Britain. This is an essential ingredient of a proper "dust-to-dust" emissions assessment."

IF WE'RE NOT VIGILANT, THIS SORT OF INSANITY WILL TAKE HOLD AMONG THE BUREAUCRATS AND POLITICIANS WHO RUN THE U.S. EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS.  

"Cap and trade" carbon limits will, of course, generate huge corporate-funded scrappage programs that will dry up JY parts sources, even if the Government doesn't sponsor a scrappage program.

It would be nice if we had some common sense in the political classes on these issues, but we will be moving in the opposite direction under an Obama administration.    
--------------------------------
460_BBF_Turbo-in-CC (formerly Dr511scj) "This guy has no life other than posting endlessly on carcraft.com." -- Car Craft, July 2005
-------
October 1, 2003: " I'm thinking a couple of...turbos, blowing through an old Powerstroke intercooler...on a Super Cobra Jet-head 460 would be mad cheap and make sick power."
-------
"I have no problem with your...talking to several versions of yourself...or pointing out our failure to do a turbo story ...." --Douglas "CC/Rambler" Glad

dr511scj_1:
Hey man, I'm with you on the ridiculousness of the radical greeniac hysteria over C02 and "climate change."

It's just that the "true believers" in forced cuts in C02 are apparently about to take charge.

This is nothing more than a socialist power grab and is wholly an overreaction to a speculative problem.

BTW, methane is a far more "offensive" greenhouse gas than CO2 to the Sierra Clubbers. (Not because of smell but because of heat-trapping ability) Some of the more radical elements on the left have even called for forced reductions in the consumption of beef and dairy products (fewer cows, less methane. Less methane, less climate change).  That's crazy!

Perhaps we ought to all go eat a huge steak, wash it down Indy 500-style with a quart of ice-cold "victory" milk, then vent our nitrous bottles to the atmosphere in a huge plume and do a massive tire-popping burnout to protest this greenhouse gas madness . . . .

But it'd probably be more effective to vote against the bums who want to steal our freedom, instead.

They'll get my V8 when they pry my cold, dead hands off of the shifter.

Amen, I was misunderstanding you on the CO2 emissions thing. Just as long as all of here realize that CO2 isn't nearly as much of a probem as the other gasses that automobiles emit, when burning fuel.  
Guzzling gas and hauling ass, the true American way.

Everybody needs to get off their butt and go vote! I don't know about you all, but wheelies and burnouts are a good enough reason to vote pro v8!  

I am voting, and NOT for 'Mr. Talk-Out-My-Backside' Obama either. Apparently he never took physics, chemistry, or biology. Buick has stated, DR has stated, and I have stated, that CO2 emissions are hardly a problem, compared to the other emissions. CSIROC, has stated that he believes it isn't as severe as we think. You are right, we all need to vote, anyone know who is pro V-8's, and not some eco-nazi nutcase? Start posting who they are, and I'll vote for them.

Also the above mentioned candidate seems to think that he can make automakers make car that get 70 MPG. All conspiracy theories aside, mine included, I agree with some of these guys. Automakers could do it, but NOONE could afford the technology. I mean farmers are SCREWED. They'll e paying like 50000 dollars for a decent diesel truck to haul their animals and loads. CC will have to go to building FWD 4 bangers that MIGHT see 500 HP, with 15000 dollars worth of tuning.

All his retoric and propaganda, in my opinion, is a load of BS to get people to vote for him. I believe a lot of people in society would be shortsighted enough to buy into the "Use less gas, I caqn make America 'Energy Independant' garbage." Thanks to Bush, Cheney, and Congress price gouging oil for the last 8 years, alot of people will feel that way. If he say he can lower CO2 emissions, he can pull votes from someone who realizes that less CO2, resulst from using less carbon based fuels.

Obama plans to give taxpayers 1000 dollar rebate on their taxes, because they pump gas into their car to go to work. Who do you think will pay for that???? Not the rich greedy shareholders at EXXON. No we will. You think gas prices were bad the last 4 years, let 'Mr. BS' get all his "economic plans" in place and we'll be footing the bill @ around 5-6 bucks a gallon, to make up for the increased cost of giving us 1000 dollars back every year.

All of those last 3 paragraphs affect our hobby, and we NEED to do something NOW!!! Not saying McCain is a better choice, but he has two things goin for him. Palin ain't bad looking, which if she has half a brain, she can use those looks with a little flirting, to persaude stupid men,who think with the wrong part of their anatomy, like Bill Clinton....  and two he IS NOT OBAMA. I rest my case.  
              Neither choice is sound, but Obama will do what he can get more conrtol from the government period  
Guzzling gas and hauling ass, the true American way.

The emerging problem is that two of the Detroit 3 may not last long enough for Obama to finish them off . . . .

"As talks between General Motors Corp. and long-time rival Chrysler LLC continued over the weekend, a harsh reality has emerged: Without a merger and possibly an assist from the federal government, two of Detroit's Big Three auto makers could run out of cash within a year."

"Though GM and Chrysler dismiss the notion, analysts and investors have begun to question whether one of the companies [GM]  -- locked out of the credit markets and burning cash rapidly -- might have to seek bankruptcy protection. Such a filing could set off a chain reaction across the U.S. auto industry . . . ."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122506556122670509.html  
--------------------------------
460_BBF_Turbo-in-CC (formerly Dr511scj) "This guy has no life other than posting endlessly on carcraft.com." -- Car Craft, July 2005
-------
October 1, 2003: " I'm thinking a couple of...turbos, blowing through an old Powerstroke intercooler...on a Super Cobra Jet-head 460 would be mad cheap and make sick power."
-------
"I have no problem with your...talking to several versions of yourself...or pointing out our failure to do a turbo story ...." --Douglas "CC/Rambler" Glad

I saw that in the News the other day as well, DR. It is scary to think that the General may not make it through 2009. I have always loved GM over the other two automakers. Chrysler??? Well yeah if they go under, salvage yards will start filing for Chapter 11 as well. Chryslers are GOLD MINES for salvage yards. EVERYTHING breaks on them. If you can find a 'good' 2.7 DOHC V-6, you might get a sniff at it for about 1400-1500 bucks used, and thanks to the recall on that engine, THEY SELL FAST!! Lord have mercy on our souls, if Obama gets in office.  
Guzzling gas and hauling ass, the true American way.

The problem for GM is if they survive, it will be through bankruptcy, a merger or with government help. Either way, the company will be greatly downsized and some, if not most of the "fun" stuff will probably be discontinued.

A liberal government is not going to give them a dime unless they go totally tree-hugger on us. That means no V8s and lots of boring electric/FWD garbage that none of us wants.  Maybe the turbo Ecotec survives.

On the other hand, if they start "parting out" a dead GM, I wonder who will buy the Corvette production line, designs and tooling.  Maybe it could survive as a limited niche free-standing marque, such as Studebaker's Avanti did for a couple of decades.

And maybe these future 'Vettes would be powered by Ford . . . .

GM's still got a couple of assets to sell, so maybe they hang on until the market rebounds.

Chrysler's done in its present form.  Regardless of who ends up with what's left of it, Chrysler will only be a shell of its former self.  Goodby Viper. Sayonara Hemi. Aloha Challenger.

Of course it will be worse if the environmentalists get an increase in CAFE to 50+ m.p.g.

BTW, I'm wondering if VW might not be interested in part of Chrysler. They already have a minivan deal and VW desparately wants to increase its market share.  And Chrysler's product lines don't seem to overlap with VW very much.  
*****
TURBO TED --Internationally known as the "John Force of the Yugo Racing Association."

Sergeant-at-Arms and immediate Past President of the SoAL Yugo Owners Group.

"WASHINGTON, Oct 31 (Reuters) - U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Friday the struggling U.S. auto industry could not be allowed to fail, and if elected president he would do "whatever I think needs to be done" to save it."  
*****
TURBO TED --Internationally known as the "John Force of the Yugo Racing Association."

Sergeant-at-Arms and immediate Past President of the SoAL Yugo Owners Group.

Election Day 2008:

I passed a Challenger SRT-8 on the freeway this morning.

Who will make sure that our kids and grandkids are still able to enjoy such muscle cars when they're old enough to drive?

If you fail to vote against those power-grabbing greeniacs who will forever steal our automotive freedoms, then you're helping them.

The car-hating "Prius" voters will be out in force.  They think they know what's best for all of us.

"Nobody needs a car with more than 200 horsepower."

"Almost nobody needs a truck or an SUV."

"V8s are irresponsible gross polluters."

"We MUST double fuel economy standards for the good of the country."

"We need fewer highways and more public transportation."

"We need to keep fuel prices high to break our 'addiction' to oil and cut carbon emissions"

"We need to 'recycle' (scrap) old cars and 'encourage' ownership of new 'green' vehicles.

That's what the radical liberals who support Obama believe.  That's the policies they'll enact if they win control of the government.

If you don't vote your automotive interests, you're saying "yes" to the radical green agenda by default.

See ya at the pole . . . .  
--------------------------------
460_BBF_Turbo-in-CC (formerly Dr511scj) "This guy has no life other than posting endlessly on carcraft.com." -- Car Craft, July 2005
-------
October 1, 2003: " I'm thinking a couple of...turbos, blowing through an old Powerstroke intercooler...on a Super Cobra Jet-head 460 would be mad cheap and make sick power."
-------
"I have no problem with your...talking to several versions of yourself...or pointing out our failure to do a turbo story ...." --Douglas "CC/Rambler" Glad