Thursday, June 9, 2011

What's The Point?

Why even bother to write a "Top Ten" article if all you're going to do is sneer up your sleeve at the entries?

10 fastest American cars

They've never had much practical use for anything besides bragging rights, but they were as American as a quarter pounder with cheese. Now they ought to be listed with other endangered species like the Eastern cougar and Kemp's Ridley turtle.

I'm talking about fast high-horsepower cars. Really fast cars, like in three times the legal speed limit. The kind you loved in Smokey and the Bandit and Two-Lane Blacktop. Traditional Detroit iron.

Right. Because cars that go ridiculously fast and waste gasoline are uniquely American, right? Ferarri makes econoboxes. Lamborghini makes grocery getters. Bentley makes fuel efficient sedans. I'm sorry, but when your article starts off with a biased opener, you're not setting it up for much.

And you don't help your credibility much with dichotomies such as:

At 14 mpg city/23 mpg highway, though, it sure won't win any fuel economy prizes.

and

As the numbers show, they provide perfectly adequate performance and better than adequate fuel economy. Both cars are rated at 17 mpg city/25 mpg highway.

So 14 mpg city won't win any prizes, but 17 mpg is better than adequate? Seriously?

Muscle/sports cars aren't meant to be economical. They're supposed to be test beds for the latest and greatest - how we get things like four wheel disc brakes, ABS, and five point restraints into everyday cars. They're supposed to be bragging rights winners, auto magazine fodder, and car show spotlights. It's eye candy. One of the cars mentioned was the Dodge Viper - it's arguable that the Viper alone was responsible for bringing Chrysler back from the brink in the late 1980s (it sure wasn't the styling of the rest of the line nor performace...)

The most astonishing thing - and it's unconscionable that this was overlooked - is just how much better these cars are than their 1960s and 1970s counterparts. Safety, performance, price, fuel economy; today's cars are vastly superior to their leaded gas equivalents using any metric one cares to use. The new Dodge Challenger gets 15 mpg in city driving using a large V8 motor. That is, quite simply, astonishing - the 440 CUI block in the 1970s Chargers would be lucky to get half that - on the highway.

You'll not see American muscle cars die out, like the article desires; you'll just see them pushed beyond the reach of the common man like their European counterparts...

That is all.

11 comments:

David Neylon said...

My '67 Camaro used to get somewhere around 12mpg around town. :)

Rev. Paul said...

My '68 Super Bee got 10 in town, and 11 on the highway. But only when I could keep my foot out of the 4-barrel. That wasn't often.

But I was fine with that. (evil grin)

Lissa said...

Dude, it's CNN.com. Sneering at American muscle cars WAS the point.

Stretch said...

My '68 Cutlass had a 350.
On a good day, with a tailwind, I could get 12.5 mpg.
On the straight sections of I-95 between F'berg and Richmond I could bury the speedometer needle.

CNN reporters would pee themselves if they were ever strapped into a classic muscle car and given the ol' boy tour of the back roads of GA.

Chris said...

Wow what a crappy article. If you'd like to see an opinion with some research which was better the new or old muscle check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geq5Oz4aDSQ&feature=channel_video_title

Jeff said...

Jay, I agree with everything you've said except for the 14 mpg versus 17 mpg issue. Miles per gallon is not a linear scale. The difference between 14 mpg and 17 mpg is quite large, while a difference between 34 mpg and 37 mpg, for example, would not be anywhere near as much.

Sigivald said...

So 14 mpg city won't win any prizes, but 17 mpg is better than adequate? Seriously?

Correct. The first won't win prizes for being high in itself, because it's not.

The second is adequate for normal people.

They're not saying "it's bad and it's adequate" for the same criterion, is the thing.

(Also, what Jeff said; 14mpg is 7.14 gallons/100mi. 17 is 5.88 gallons/100mi.

A savings of about 1 1/4 gallons of fuel per 100 miles is significant; the same savings when you start at 25mpg is to go to 36mpg!)

Stretch: I'd pee myself in that situation, since those cars are, in modern terms, horrible deathtraps that can't take a turn.

Jay G said...

The argument fails, though, when you consider the market against which those cars (the mid sized sedans) are measured.

Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Nissan Altima all get mid-20s around town and 30 or better on the highway.

17 MPG is *NOT* "better than adequate" for a mid-sized sedan. It's *barely* "better than adequate" against world-class supercars.

You see, they're comparing the 14 MPG of the Challenger against all other cars on the road. They're comparing the SHO against only the other cars on the list. It's a bit of linguistic slight-of-hand they were hoping no one would catch...

Bubblehead Les. said...

Well, it's all Moot, since the Anointed One plans on putting us all into the Chevy Volt or on a Bus when he Rigs the Election, with help from the Likely Republitard Nominee, Mitt "I'm Supposed to Be President, Just Ask My Daddy" Romney.

Old NFO said...

My 67 Vette got 6mpg IF I kept my foot out of it... sigh... But gas was .25-30 cents a gallon back then

Angus McThag said...

My Vette just got 26.2mpg on the Power Tour. It's rated 19/26; but I rarely see less than 21 in town.

The engineers had won the milage war, so they moved the goalposts. Again.