<VV> Re: Retro

[Tony Underwood]

At 02:37 PM 11/22/2006, Bill H. wrote:
>                                     B"H
>
>Don't forget the bumper regs...new vehicles must meet
>the 5 mph bumper standards as well.


Problem there...   the vast majority of cars today do NOT meet that 5 
mph spec.    There was an independent study done a while back... a 
flock of different make/model cars were tested for this spec and 
among the *Very* few that met it was the new VW Beetle, which was 
impacted against the test barrier at varying speeds up to 5 mph.   It 
survived with no damage at all, cost of repairs judged to be 0 dollars.

Some of the "5 mph" cars cost well into 4 significant figures to 
repair when bumping that 5 mph test barrier.

SO:   How thoroughly must that Bel-Air bumper meet these "standards"?


>It is, of course, completely possible to build a
>MODIFIED version of an old car, like a '57 Bel Air or
>'66 Corsa, using the original body panels and even the
>frame components, as long as Fed standards are adhered
>to.


Recall that I'd suggested that this new Bel-Air would *look* the 
same.   It wouldn't have to be built the same, verbatim.    The car 
could even be built on an existing platform (if there WAS such a RWD 
platform available) so as to exploit current tooling.


>Building a small block Chevy V8 is not a problem; GM
>builds them today completely within Federal standards.
>  One could be bored out to 265 or 283, or whatever.


Hell, stuff an LS1 in it.   I've seen plenty of "Shoebox Chevies" 
with current engines.   Remember, it's gotta meet smog.


>The Corvair's 6 is another story; I don't know whether
>this engine could be adapted for todays emissions and
>fuel economy.

Not and remain air cooled.   Some emissions are enhanced by higher 
engine temps which tend to fluctuate wildly in air cooled engines 
depending on ambient temps.


>And even if they could, would it run as
>well as the original?  Maybe, Subaru does it with a 4,
>but it's water cooled and has sophisticated fuel and
>electrical systems.

If GM repro'ed a 'Vair, it would have to be liquid cooled... that's 
pretty much that.   It would cost too much to cook up another air 
cooled engine and make it meet specs.


>Bumpers would have to be modified, as would interiors.
>  But if we can send men to the moon and probes to
>Mars, I think it's within the scope of human
>achievements to modify a classic car to meet modern
>standards, even if it doesn't look exactly like the
>original.

It wouldn't have to be exact.   All it would have to do is look close 
enough.


>BTW, the Mustang isn't an exact copy of the original.

But again, it's close enough to be unmistakable as a Mustang.    Look 
at the Fox body car...  if you'd never seen one before, would you 
suspect it to be a Mustang?


>Ford did an excellent job to evoke the look of the
>original inside and out, but I bet not one part
>anywhere on the car is compatible with the original,

Likewise the Bel-Air...  which would likely have a current LS1 with 
4-sp auto or a 5-speed manual.    Or, maybe a V6 for the "style over 
hotrod" consumer.   Should be easy enough.   Again, Ford did it, and 
Frau Mopar's doing it with the new Challenger.


>and it certainly won't handle or ride the same (it
>will of course be light years better than the
>original).

...as would this new Bel-Air.   Ever drive a 1957 Chevrolet?   They 
handle like rowboats compared to *anything* modern.


>In any case, the original Corvair drives so nicely
>that a modern version won't be such a major
>improvement anyway.


Probably not.   Then again, it's likely moot...  nowhere nearly as 
many people would go out to buy a retro-modern Corvair than would a 
retro-modern 57 Chevy Bel-Air.

...or Mustang.



>One reason to buy an older car is to be free of all
>that complicated junk anyway; the "check engine" light
>comes on and you fail inspection, get charged an arm
>and a leg from a dealer, and have to put up with
>perhaps having more problems coming from the same
>system in the future.

Once again, symbolism over substance...  and of course the KISS 
principle went out the window with the notion of removing the vehicle 
operator from the loop, far as what's happening to their vehicle is 
concerned.    The driver doesn't know if the engine has suffered 
low/zero oil pressure or a "scheduled checkup" indication when that 
"check engine" light pops on.     How many new vehicles have oil 
pressure gauges unless it's specifically a hotrod to begin with?

It's another move to take the driver out of the loop.


>If I can get 25 mpg in my Monza, and the same 25 mpg
>with a 2006 Malibu, I'm happy.  Although I am all for
>the environment, I know that 99.9 percent of Americans
>want the Malibu over the Monza, so the impact of
>driving my 69 Corvair on the environment is minimal.


Agreed.   The pollution added to the environment by building a new 
car far exceeds that which is released by the vintage car, relatively 
speaking, over the life of that new car as compared to the operating 
time of that vintage car during the same time period.

For some reason, the "green freaks" don't seem to get this...  as 
they continue to petition for the recycling of old cars via "clunker 
laws".    It also seems to be given support by owners of dealerships 
as well as manufacturers, seeing as how if those old cars are all 
done in for whatever reasons, those drivers would have to go buy 
something else.    This was the "principle" used in partial support 
of a particular variation of a clunker law that was attempted here in 
VA a few years back (didn't pass).


>If I get my car equipped with A/C, I won't use R-12.
>How's that for doing something about the environment?


If it gets hot out, I do like they usually did in the '60s...  I roll 
down a couple of windows.    Now, I don't begrudge the Subaru for its A/C...



tony..