Ford Has Everything Already Thought Out for Us Collectors

[cantflip]

They hacked up errr... modified the car from its role as a car you could build in your driveway a while ago. Corvette suspension etc. Then it got changed back to something closer to the 60/70's version.

But, yea, it was just sitting around collecting dust. Popular Hot Rodding is long gone and the slicker mags now have to generate some interest somewhere. As I said, I have mixed feelings.... I understand it was built to show different mods and it's obvious that the mags used it to showcase new products and therefore sell advertising space. But it did become a real representative car of the "golden era" of car magazines.

Here's how it looked in the movie "Hollywood Knights". I think it's the best version.

View attachment 495499

I'm familiar with the car from the stories/articles... should have been sold long ago to someone who'd appreciate it's role in history... I remember seeing the GM rebuild stuff and while it was ok, why keep beating this horse? I know it was pretty raggedy by then too.

If it hadn't been "ruined" so much, I'd be pissed they didn't use a Dynacorn car and then nobody could whine.

 

[cantflip]

Friend of mine has a 89 Porsche 911 turbo with 2 engines ,one is original and the one he uses is modified and considered buying a Tesla. Went and test drove one and he said "I felt like I was driving a kitchen appliance "

All cars are appliances for the masses who don't care about them or driving, and just want to get to wherever their smartphone wants them to be.

 

[Big_John]

While I started this thread, if it ever comes to banning our old internal combustion engines in our classics, I will probably just leave my restored cars as museum pieces for the generations of folks yet to come who might want to see what the automotive industry was creating in the past as it actually was.................

For me at least, it is the memories these cars bring back and the beautiful designs that I appreciate the most.

I don't think we'll see banning the ICE engines for quite a while, although things surprise me.

IMHO, we do need to embrace some of this technology. It's not going away... If a few cars here and there get electrical conversions, the powers that be are going to smile and not focus on the rest of the hobby. If everyone fights it, it could easily be seen as a "problem" that needs "fixing". It's just playing the game.

Of course, I look at it as when that time does come, I'll be past the point of playing with my cars.

 

[saforwardlook]

I don't think we'll see banning the ICE engines for quite a while, although things surprise me.

IMHO, we do need to embrace some of this technology. It's not going away... If a few cars here and there get electrical conversions, the powers that be are going to smile and not focus on the rest of the hobby. If everyone fights it, it could easily be seen as a "problem" that needs "fixing". It's just playing the game.

Of course, I look at it as when that time does come, I'll be past the point of playing with my cars.

In my view, the more rapidly we implement advanced technologies to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide that creates global warming, the more likely it will be that collector cars will not be banned. Hopefully the "powers that be" will focus on the daily driven cars first and maybe indeed avoid messing with the gasoline powered collector cars just because doing so would not appreciably affect the level of accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere due to their relatively small number and the low miles accumulated on them.

Because low emission technology was implemented rapidly in our modern vehicles relative to smog forming emissions during the last 25 years, that is why California could justify leaving all the cars 1975 and older completely alone when it comes to the Smog Check program in the state. After about a minute of engine warm up, tailpipe emissions relative to smog are virtually at background emission levels out the tail pipes on new vehicles. One of the reasons newer vehicles are in the Smog Check program is that gasoline/diesel emission control equipment deteriorates very gradually over time and so emission do go up from "new" levels.

When the battery capacity of an EV deteriorates, the EV motor(s) themselves do not require more electricity to run than when new. So there would be no similar deterioration in CO2 emissions as there is in smog forming emissions from new vehicles as they age. The batteries would need to be recharged more frequently but the same amount of energy is needed to operate an electric vehicle as time goes on.

 

[3175375]

The driving force behind EVs is simple - most manufacturers believe climate change is real (or they believe that most nations in the world at least do) and realize their path is set in stone going forward it appears…

I don’t believe that their belief in climate change is real, they aren’t addressing the disposal cost of the batteries and as such, are creating a mess.
I believe that their motivation is for the almighty $, much like Thomas Durant did for the transcontinental railroad…

 

[BigblueC]

The driving force behind EVs is simple - most manufacturers believe climate change is real (or they believe that most nations in the world at least do) and realize their path is set in stone going forward it appears.

I don’t believe that their belief in climate change is real, they aren’t addressing the disposal cost of the batteries and as such, are creating a mess.
I believe that their motivation is for the almighty $, much like Thomas Durant did for the transcontinental railroad…

These corporations do not and cannot "believe" that climate change is real, or that their product(s) are responsible for pollution/climate change or anything like that. That would mean admitting fault and therefore bearing responsibility which could be financially burdensome. What they actually believe and know is that their paid for political "friends" will be attempting to force the masses to buy a new product, which of course these corporations produce and sell. This is crony capitalism. (Does anyone actually believe that Pelosi coincidentally bought Tesla stock weeks before the the biden admin publicly released plans for an EV fleet?)

One of the big guys at Dodge essentially said that a few months ago without directly saying it. He stated that the HEMI will be killed off in the coming years, not because of a lack of market demand, or that the market is demanding another product like EVs, but because of government influence, requirements and regulations i.e. they will be forced to go this route, and just like a forced fart, the result will be ****.

BTW, there was an EV lifecycle study done in '14 or '15 which found that an EV from cradle-to-grave was some 2-4X dirtier (emissions) than a comparable conventional ICE vehicle. Notice how the EV pushers never talk about anything beyond tail pipe emissions, like where the power comes from or what is required to produce and then dispose of the batteries.

 

[70NEWYORKER]

BTW, there was an EV lifecycle study done in '14 or '15 which found that an EV from cradle-to-grave was some 2-4X dirtier (emissions) than a comparable conventional ICE vehicle. Notice how the EV pushers never talk about anything beyond tail pipe emissions, like where the power comes from or what is required to produce and then dispose of the batteries.

 

[Mike66Chryslers]

Oh no, an interesting thread about new technology (and a magazine project car with a fascinating history) is turning into another thread about politics and the environment. I guess it was inevitable.

Here is a picture of a whale sculpture preventing a train wreck.

 

[3175375]

Oh no, an interesting thread about new technology (and a magazine project car with a fascinating history) is turning into another thread about politics and the environment. I guess it was inevitable.

Here is a picture of a whale sculpture preventing a train wreck.
View attachment 495666

Is referencing the government (regardless of the political party), political? Me thinks not. I believe that it’s a statement of the situation.

 

[Mike66Chryslers]

Is referencing the government (regardless of the political party), political? Me thinks not. I believe that it’s a statement of the situation.

This thread started out focusing on technology and whether or not it was a good idea to hack-up an iconic magazine car to put an EV powertrain in it. Neither of these are overtly political topics.

Then on p.2 of this thread we've had references to whether or not climate change is real, crony capitalism, Pelosi (Democrat) mentioned by name, whether EVs actually help when considering their cradle to grave environmental impacts. Maybe you can't, but I can see where this is headed.

 

[3175375]

This thread started out focusing on technology and whether or not it was a good idea to hack-up an iconic magazine car to put an EV powertrain in it. Neither of these are overtly political topics.

Then on p.2 of this thread we've had references to whether or not climate change is real, crony capitalism, Pelosi (Democrat) mentioned by name, whether EVs actually help when considering their cradle to grave environmental impacts. Maybe you can't, but I can see where this is headed.

I agree that it could head that direction.
I have tried to comment only regarding the facts (benefits and not) regarding electric vehicles and the technology associated with them in this thread.
It is tempting and I must be mindful not to tie politics into this, as many of the results of where this type of work are a result of government limitations or edicts.

As an example, I believe that the International designed 7.3l Diesel engine was ‘eliminated’ due to EPA regulations that drove Ford to replace it with the 6.0l. Of course, it’s gotten worse with DEF and other controls that are intended to reduce emissions (at a higher cost and complexity)…

 

[BigblueC]

Then on p.2 of this thread we've had references to whether or not climate change is real, crony capitalism, Pelosi (Democrat) mentioned by name, whether EVs actually help when considering their cradle to grave environmental impacts. Maybe you can't, but I can see where this is headed.

You overlooked "the driving force behind EVs" statement on page 1, which sparked the statements on page 2 of which you are referring.

It does have potential to go "down that road", but we can also continue the original topic of EV stuff, like the fact that I find it interesting that EVs have been around for over 100 years now and really haven't made significant changes relative to other, competitive vehicles.

 

[bnz84]

BTW, there was an EV lifecycle study done in '14 or '15

I would be interested in the assumptions they used 6 years ago. Things are changing so fast and I would like to find current studies that come to the same conclusion. Going to encourage my daughters to be Lineman knowing they will have steady work!

 

[BigblueC]

Going to encourage my daughters to be Lineman knowing they will have steady work!

Funny but also yes.
I'd bet that electricians (residential and com) will be in demand and paid well in the coming years.

I'll try to find the original paper later today if you want to look through it. And I do realize things are change/developing fast on the battery front. There may be more recent reports out that I haven't seen.

 

[SGT FURY]

California eliminates the use of 2006 older diesel semi’s tractors for being non DEF compliant. Many small trucking Companies were forced out of business.

Now there is a massive shortage of trucks to haul containers importing goods from China. They are now bringing in thousands of non compliant truck drivers from Mexico to help solve problem of the shipping ports! Go figure!

I agree that it could head that direction.
I have tried to comment only regarding the facts (benefits and not) regarding electric vehicles and the technology associated with them in this thread.
It is tempting and I must be mindful not to tie politics into this, as many of the results of where this type of work are a result of government limitations or edicts.

As an example, I believe that the International designed 7.3l Diesel engine was ‘eliminated’ due to EPA regulations that drove Ford to replace it with the 6.0l. Of course, it’s gotten worse with DEF and other controls that are intended to reduce emissions (at a higher cost and complexity)…

 

[Big_John]

There's a few of these cars out there. I understand this one was done using a wrecked Tesla, and done at his home shop, but have no other details.

And I think this might have been covered on here.



And this bizarre piece. I haven't quite figured out why...

 

[Big_John]

And Neil Young's Lincoln, which caused a warehouse fire.

 

[Mike66Chryslers]

You overlooked "the driving force behind EVs" statement on page 1, which sparked the statements on page 2 of which you are referring.

I chose to overlook them, as did most of the other commenters on this thread. However, you chose to dive in head-first in comment #26.

It does have potential to go "down that road", but we can also continue the original topic of EV stuff, like the fact that I find it interesting that EVs have been around for over 100 years now and really haven't made significant changes relative to other, competitive vehicles.

I would only somewhat agree with that statement. Steam-powered cars have also "been around" for over 100 years. Where can I buy one of those? ;)

Early-on, it was unclear whether gas, electric or steam would become the dominant type of vehicle. Each had advantages and disadvantages. Electric was easiest to operate but was limited in range and speed, and also had to remain in cities because of lack of charging infrastructure in the countryside. Gasoline was difficult to start and operate (hand-crank start, transmission with clutch due to narrow torque band, manual fuel mixture controls, etc). It had a long theoretical range, as long as you carried fuel with you. There wasn't a gas station on every corner like there is today. Steam was easiest to fuel (kerosene, water), had lots of usable torque, but it had the longest start-up time and was akin to operating a miniature steam locomotive.

It wasn't until the advent of Kettering ignition and electric starter that gas-powered cars became the clear winner between the three. Most development of alternative powerplants stopped after that, at least by mainstream auto manufacturers. The Stanley brothers, the most prolific manufacturer of steam cars, folded their company while it was still profitable because they realized that gas power would win.

EVs may have been able to make a resurgence earlier than they did, but there was a chicken-and-egg type problem which prevented electric cars from having any chance of usurping gasoline cars: no demand, no infrastructure, no product development. You need all 3 to be successful. Gas-power already had a huge entrenched base after 100+ years of continuous development. It basically took Tesla to show that electric cars don't have to be just "city cars" bought by eccentric hairshirts. That was a huge change.

 

[saforwardlook]

If you think EVs are not here to stay, you should read up regarding Ford and VW's comments on the Tesla business model and how very surprisingly healthy it is. Both Ford and VW are sounding the alarm at how Tesla profits are huge compared to their own and are really both wondering how they will survive going forward. Both Ford's and VW's profits are miniscule compared to Tesla. I have been hearing for years now on this site how Tesla will go bankrupt and so on, but it is just the opposite. Other companies are now trying desperately to emulate them. Even Toyota.

Investors know who the winners will be and that is why Apple is doing so well. Tesla is also on their list.

A bunch of tired old men who are alarmed at a changing future will not accept that the world is moving on past their experiences and understandings in life. Companies that do not innovate and take well thought out chances will just fade away, like us. And no one will care..............................

 

[ricks_RR]

nice 1959 Lincoln i had a 1960 convertible