mrvette

Of course me being an old ET from back in the vacuum tube daze....(how many of you have even SEEN a VT, even in a museum?).....nuff said....

I have installed DPFI on several cars, including an old Pontiac 462" engine and of course the LT1 induction on my 355 in the '72 with the o/drive trans I built.....I even put DPFI on a Volvo powered boat, ran it with a GM computer......doubled the time on the water.....upped the economy a good bit on the cars, AND did it without Cat *** trophic converters....

NICE thing about older cars is the .gov don't bother looking at them every year....free to do my own thing.....

since I retarred now, the car set in the garage way more daze then even runs to the store....one mile each way.....

Gold Dragon

I don’t have a problem with the millenials, I raised two of them. They were raised in the car culture and don’t subscribe to the notion that old cars will destroy the planet.
As for the kid at The coffee place, I should have given him both barrels, his comments caught me off guard. I am more used to comments like sweet ride, what year is it? Or grandpa used to have one. Going to voice my opinion by not spending my dollars at that particular establishment.
I agree as most of you do, the global warming scare seems to be designed to push a hidden and more sinister agenda. They can have my old Chevy when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers.

PeterC3

We have 3 V8's - all Corvettes of course (I don't like to think of the Hyndai SUV) and I 'aint afraid to burn all the fuel I can afford to burn.

Climate does change, think of the Vikings in Iceland a thousand years or so back. The only thing I deny is that scientific community knows what's causing it. If you do an image search of the phrase "Climate change level of scientific understanding" you will see graphs of the various influences that affect climate. The interesting thing is that our understanding of C02 etc emissions effect on climate is high, but the understanding of the suns forcing on climate is low. Consider that the sun creates climate. With out the suns energy bathing the earth we would be Pluto, an ice ball.

So the current situation is like complaining about a warming house, blaming the stove and too much cooking, when you don't have a clear understanding of how the furnace works. The furnace, our sun, is variable in it's behavior and astronomers don't know why.

Anyway, I'm not feeling the slightest bit guilty about racing around the track in my C5 Z06, burning up a tank of fuel in an hour. My emissions will help ward off the coming deep freeze... :-)

Richard454

My favorite bumper sticker-

cagotzmann

If you are irresponsible, then what about me. I am burning a 1/4 tank per session.



We need it warmer here in Canada.

golfboy

I'll drive my 78 Pace Car with dual exhausts and NO catalytic converters for as long as I can get gasoline to put in it. Life is too short to have to conform to all of society's rules and regulations. LOL.

71 Vert LS1

I would quickly ask for a word with the manager. Asking to keep his or her thoughts to them private when they are at work. On their own time go for it. Hopefully they will get arrested for being morons.

2airtime2

I burn about 110-120 gallons in a day of offshore fishing (twin 225 outboards). When I go with my buddy who has twin 300's we have burned (or burnt) up to 185 gallons in a day. I'm not going to quit living to try and please snowflakes. If it wasn't perceived polluting they would be mad at something else I do...like not paying my fair share of taxes.

C3 4ME

If some millennial thinks that our cars which are driven a FRACTION of what daily drivers are driven are the problem, they need a real wake up call. I've often wondered but have no facts to go on, whether keeping an old car on the road is worse for the environment than producing a new throwaway car every few years?

L-46man

1. A Hummer!!! Is less wasteful of natural resources than a Prius (which is ALL HYPE).
2. A used Corvette did not create as much pollution to make as a NEW Prius.
3. If your sole criteria is 'carbon footprint'...older corvettes put more carbon into the environment...that is true.. however a 'generation of cars' is about 15 years, so you have KEPT two-three generations of cars FROM being made, and therefore all the carbon used to make those 3 cars is MORE than the Vette your driving, 'pollutes'.
4. compared to any other JET/ Radial engine PLANE....you are terrifically ahead of the BS/HYPE etc.
5. I used to test Jet engines and turboprops....pollution!...gettoddahere!

unkahal

PeterC3

Saw this interesting article:
http://driving.ca/auto-news/news/mot...-co2-emissions

In the article it's pointed out that the source of electricity used to recharge the car has an effect on the e-car's carbon foot print as measured in equivalent mpg:

Coal powered electricity: 29 mpg
solar: 350 mpg
nuclear: 2,300 mpg
hydro: 5,100 mpg

So if you're getting your electricity from coal, the electric car is not much farther ahead than an efficient gas engine.

The article also points out:
Tesla battery production releases as much CO2 as eight years of gasoline driving.

L-46man

I'm a mechanical engineer...we call this 'kicking the can down the road'.

This is one reason I 'strongly dislike' the Prius...it is a can of hype being kicked down the road , bought by dim- minded, hype susceptible 'drivers'...er ah motor vehicle operators. (spend near $30k to 'actually' get what, 10 mpg????) How much gas does that pay for???

I have a 40 year old VW Scirocco...up to 40 mpg (at 55mph) I am hundreds of thousands of dollars ahead of a brand new (fill in the name of your favorite soup-de- jour -hype-mobile). 500,000 miles of driving ONE type of car. (on regular)
Last time I took it into AZ (IM 240) emissions....the car ZERO-ed out the emissions...the emission guys all grouped around the car and were flabbergasted.
Besides, it Sh!tz and gitz!

This way I can drive the Vette my 2500 miles a year with a grin on my face!

vette8121

No contest, but lets not forget those darn dams also hurt the environment. It never ends. tm

Torqued Off

IF the answer was hydroelectric dams, why would they not be built?

Gold Dragon

Good question. Speaking of hydroelectric power, here is an interesting article on cars that are hydrogen based. Can you imagine a Corvette that is powered by water.? May be closer than you think.http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a3428/4271579/

pigfarmer

I'd like to see the hydrogen 'vette but didn't see a link in the post

In the meantime, here's one way to deal with hydroelectric dam issues:
https://www.theverge.com/2014/8/11/5...fish-to-safety

Yeah...... ok..........

Metalhead140

I've got 3 vacuum tube amps sitting here, swapped out some tubes last week... Some of us guitarists still believe in the old stuff!

resdoggie

There's lots of them around. They aren't all as huge as the Hoover dam. See, up here we have lots and lots of water unlike you folks so we can build huge hydroelectric facilities. Then we sell the surplus to you guys. Electric cars have a foot hold now so the demand for electricity will no doubt increase to supply that demand. Three main choices to supply the "fuel" to produce electricity: coal, uranium, water. I prefer water because it's the cleanest and environmentally friendly. Nothing wrong with coal if the technology is developed to burn it "clean". And what to do with nuclear waste?

Edit: I'm not a tree hugger. If I was I wouldn't own a vette, CTS-V or Ram Rebel. I do accept what scientists/climatologists have researched and proven. I don't accept uneducated opinions or those of politicians, which is the same thing.

LiveandLetDrive

Funny you should mention that, as your diet has far more impact than what you drive. But don't mind me, I'm just a neo-hippie vegetarian ex-Tesla employee...

LiveandLetDrive

Well, you know what they say about guys with big carbon footprints...


Solar is coming... It's a tiny fraction now obviously, but I believe it is the fastest growing. What's more democratic than having your own, distributed, source of power?


All of the focus on classics and performance cars has always been confusion, like outlawing the scary-looking guns to comfort the frightened suburbanites, rather than trying to do something evidence-based and meaningful. SEMA is our NRA. (Though hopefully they're not trying to block studies into what makes cars dangerous/polluting. )

The big picture is this: 99% of people don't give a vermin's poop-shoot about cars, they just want to get to work and wherever they want to go with maximum freedom and minimal hassle and stress. Driving hundreds of millions of single-operator 30% efficient combustion cars to do this is absurd. If politics don't ruin our ability to make nuanced policy, there should be a future where the commuters zip around in automated electric thingies of all sorts and the 1% of enthusiasts (not the be mistaken for that other 1%, overlap aside) would be free to use the largely wide-open roads to their hearts content. Same for cargo-transport, eventually for air travel too. There is a problem (leave the unnecessarily-politicized "climate change" out of it and just look at our environmental impact broadly, don't $#!+ where you sleep!), but we don't have to fix it in the dumbest, least nuanced, least free way possible. And denying the problem's reality because it doesn't jive with how you want to live is just ignorant. [/ShouldBeInOffTopicForum]