All afternoon, sure. I presume you're using a convoluted way to say "we don't (and probably can't) have the infrastructure for everyone to be able to charge and drive an EV" Which, I concede, is a very good point, though most of that comes from being hellbent on getting rid of hydrocarbon power stations and demonising nuclear fission at the same time. Let's imagine it's 2033, the ban is looming only 2 years away, some car makers still have ICE models around, as batteries still aren't cheap and governments have given up on subsidising costs, they still don't pack enough energy for towing, etc. and electricity companies are restricting when you can charge. yet, governments are still aiming for the 2035 ban. At this point, I'd suspect that a lot of people will start protesting, as the deadline has become far more "real", and optimism for the future is out the window, as with 10 more years the technology still isn't practical. Considering people were protesting about government force over the petty issue of wearing a mask, then far more people would be involved in this. But still, in all their bureaucratic wisdom, governments ignore the protests, and push the ban through. immediately, this would create a situation much like we're currently in with supply chains, with a large part of the new car market (ICEs) gone, those who buy new (ICE) cars will hold on to what they have, meaning the next people down can't buy them secondhand, and the next, and so on until a flogged 17-year-old chrysler 200 with 300,000 miles is worth $8000. this would squeeze some more people into EVs, but definitely not all, as it's still possible to hang onto your old ICE car, and as more people get EVs, electricity gets more expensive. and if governments wanted to get rid of all the secondhand ICE cars by force, relinquishing registrability would inevitably blow up in their faces, at worst I could see all the people still with later and vintage ICEs just driving with no plates. "what are they gonna do, fine all of us?". but even implementing ULEZ policies everywhere would just raise ICE ownership cost to match an EV, which would prevent poor people from getting to work at all, which the government would soon find out, is bad for the economy. and unlike the current european energy crisis, this isn't a "sorry, we can't get gas from qatar fast enough" situation, it's entirely on the government artificially forcing it. And even in ICEs being banned from sale, rich blokes who want a v12 ferrari will inevitably lobby the government to get an exemption, low volume companies making replica/continuation cars (alvis, morgan, pur sang, etc.) will either cry "killing local businesses" or find some loophole to register them as "restored" or "show-and-display art pieces" etc. It's like any other heavy-handed impractical law, either enforcement leaks like a sieve and they give up, like US prohibition, or you end up incarcerating/murdering 20% of your entire population, like the USSR's Regime, and I just can't see the latter happening over some cars. then stop complaining, get out there, and buy a GR corolla. I also think the problem of cars being "boring" is broader than some sports car martyrdom, there have always been boring cars for boring people. your own taste of what's "boring" is also subjective, I suspect you may think the AMC pacer is cool, but a nissan juke is a crime against humanity. but in reality, they're both fairly mundane compact cars with a fun/hideous face, depending on who you ask. I think purpose built sports cars or roadsters only ever existed because working on and driving a shitty MG was among the more popular hobbies for young people in the 60s/70s, but now that people have the internet they'd rather spend time online arguing about the socio-economic viability of EVs. nanny-ism has also increased, younger people are more risk-averse than older generations were, so less people are going to get into the (realistically rather dangerous) world of motorsport. thus, the percentage of people who actually want a sharp handling car is lower, so those few models have to be compromised for practicality, thus hot hatches become one of the biggest "sporty" market segments. on the flipside, I think the massive range of cars available to buy today gives people a sort of FOMO leading to compromise, they want it to have lots of space to be practical but also small enough to be easily parked, to be able to go offroad (once again, safety consciousness) but not fuel inefficient, etc. Thus, we end up with a myriad of slightly different-sized crossovers. as for the whole AV thing, it's an entirely different problem, it seems like we're now getting to a phase where companies developing it are starting to admit it's really difficult to even make it function.
It seems none of you had the discipline to move this discussion here yourself, please, if you intend to continue, do so here.
The other day in the update speculation thread I mentioned that instead of a dedicated RV we could see an upfit for an existing BoF truck, and a Kentarch conversion would be a happy middle ground between an upfit and a dedicated platform. (now that I've had a few days since posting that to think about it, a Kentarch conversion RV is actually a really great option for this niche... It's unique, historically interesting, gives more content to Kentarch, and uses less recourses than a dedicated new platform while providing something more unique and useful than just an upfit...) The Revcon Trailblazer was the example I used for that, and today I stumbled upon this gem of a commercial for those that I felt the need to share with the world. It's equal in achievement to the Abrams tank!
Look into the sky and see the pattern Reflecting in your eyes from a distance Mirror in disguise of [?] Mix it up like a cocktail The devil's inside of the detail The devil runs wild under veil Coming together in the pattern Fit tightly like a dovetail Nuclear fusion All the programming couldn't break us Exponentially heightened power We're essentially one being All the programming couldn't tear us From eventually giving tightly We're essentially one being Nuclear fusion Seriously though, that'll take a while to get to cars. I'm still mad all our boats aren't at least fission powered, there really isn't a reason why they shouldn't be other than all the...er...hype about Chernobyl.
Some new pics 700 more miles till the 4000 mile mark for this engine (and pretty much how much ive driven it too) And a better pic showing the new roof colour Ahh summer days...
only the finest, cruiseomatic (3 speed auto) I think it's an mx/medium case. Idk tho. It's cast iron and heavy as shit. I spun a rod bearing and wasted the crankshaft (wringing it over 6 grand a few too many times for the stock oiling system) last april and the engine is now going back together.
Your crazy enough to push a stock FE block engine past 5 grand? i tip my hat to you sir, because you are a mad man
Peoples expectations change with technological progress https://geoff.greer.fm/2023/02/08/gasoline-car-review/
What kind of cheap moonshine/paint thinner mixture did I pour directly on my brain by attempting to read that Revoke this person's opinion license right now
Looking through a previous copy of Old Cars Price Report, it just hit me what would be a perfect low-mid-budget mountain pass car that no one is looking at right now. The Ford Pinto. I'm not joking. Their low status and bad reputation seems to have kept prices at "used car" levels for a long time; though they have some annoying "collectorness" on them now, you can, or at least could a year ago, still get one in fully decent condition for a little over $3K, or a ratty-but-mostly-running one for less than $1500. For that, you get extremely light weight, RWD, and some very decent engine choices. The 2.3L I4, as also seen in Mustangs, Rangers, etc., is a distant relative of the Escort Cosworth engine, and seems to like boost just as much; there are drag racers getting four-digit horsepower out of these in Fox Mustangs. The 2.8L V6 is a European Ford design and was apparently not well regarded, but it seems to have some racing pedigree as well. The 2.0L seems to be built on the same architecture as the 2.3 but with narrower bores and should still have some aftermarket support via the UK. Early 1.6L is a Kent engine which means it also has a racing pedigree, but stock it's absolutely gutless even for a car of this size (54HP after the switch to SAE net ratings) and at this point any aftermarket support is likely to revolve around Formula Ford or old British cars. Of course, V8s have been made to fit as well (though apparently even the Mustang II needed a redesigned engine bay, via a revised hood and header panel, to have this work). The Mustang II is the same chassis, but heavier and more expensive to the point where I would probably consider it to be "not worth it". Could have a factory installed 302, but unfortunately these were all automatics. Apparently the 1978 could have some kind of Brembo brake package. I would assume that in either case, pre-1976 versions would have no catalytic converters and would thus be the ones to go for, even if they are slightly more valuable, but it actually seems like, in stock trim, both the 2.3 and 2.8 were most powerful in 1976.
'Volthead', first time I've heard that one. "I'm tellin' ya, these damn voltheads in the whayt hawse ruinin' everythang!"
