posted
I am writing a report on the effect of muscle cars on the environment for my Environmental Science Class at Penn State and looking for literature on the web or elsewhere on anything that might help me out in some way or another. And dont worry all, I'm in FAVOR of the muscle car (old and new) and for it to stay around as an important part of our lives. Here is just the first paragraph of a summary of the report which might give you a little better insight of wehre I'm heading. Hope you all can help and thanks in advance!!!
The Effect of Muscle Cars on the Environment (The Change of High Pollutant Vehicles over the Years)
quote:I am basing my report on how cars have been improved over the years to be more environmentally friendly. Though I will try and focus on the improvement of "muscle cars" I will also talk about the recent improvements on the popular Sport Utility Vehicles in the market today. Since muscle cars have played such a large role in the automotive industry in the past and still play a significant role in today's sport's car market, I plan to investigate how their popularity has dwindled over the years, and linking that with stricter regulations put into act over the years.
-------------------- 2004 Cavalier LS Sport Coupe Manual,Sunroof,16" Chrome, Zaino!!! http://community.webshots.com/user/pazbich3 Used to Drive: 2001 Camaro SS #3220 Posts: 2651 | From: Enola (Harrisburg Area), Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
Early muscle cars usually ran a bit rich, but so did everything else ... lean burned holes in your pistons. Since about 1968 or so, we have had emission limits to meet. Muscle cars met the limits and so did every other car sold in the U.S.A. And not many ever were much better than the limits until the Japanese invasion. I remeber I had a 1980 Toyota Celica with the 200R engine. At the time, the Hydrocarbon limits in Phoenix, AZ were 250 PPM. Mine registered 6 PPM! Most of the Detroit iron was in the 150 PPM and over area.
The thing that sent emission WAY down was microprocessor control and fuel injection. That way, the mixture can be controlled in each cylinder. That's whay we have 100,000 mile spark plugs now ... it's all due to better mixture control.
So maybe the question should be, "What percentage of new car sales over the last, say, 10 years or so were muscle cars. If it works out to 10%, then muscle cars have had 10% of the cumulative effect on the environment that ALL cars have had.
The thing to remember is that ONE volcano has more effect on the atmosphere than everythig else man has done in the way of car emissions for decades (Note: I do NOT include chemical emissions from toxins). Check it out with any Physical Geography instructor.
Good luck on your paper. Maybe is SHOULD be on, "The effect that my muscle car has had on my life style" or something like that.
Posts: 67 | From: Monroe, WA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Thanks a bunch Greg for the input and insight. The research is only in the preliminary stage and the topic isn't set in stone. I'm basically going to try and say how the car has evolved due to tighter restrictions, such as emissions standards, fuel economy, etc. I wanted to tie it in with the 'muscle car' since that's one of my passions and since they were so big way back when (before I was born) and how that maybe casued a spark for tighter restrictions (among other things such as the oil crisis). I have planty of time to think over the subject and hopefully I'll get something started with all your opinons and insights since our cars IS our passion!! Thanks again Posts: 2651 | From: Enola (Harrisburg Area), Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I can not point you to any sources, but here are some thoughts on the subject. First off, I think you have picked a very complex subject with a ton of interdependencies.
One argument you can explore is that muscle cars cars equate to horsepower. The success of a musclecar in the market place is directly related to its horsepower. This led to the race for more and more horsepower. This in turn required manufacturers to invent and develop new ways to make horsepower (DOHC, freer flowing heads, better combustion chamber designs, better fuels (with alcohol for octance boosting), fuel injection, microprocessors, etc).
However, tied into this ruch for horsepower are the CAFE standards which demand better efficiency for the same horsepower and EPA clean air standards which demands lower emmissions for the same horsepower. Sometimes these objectives work together, some times they clash. For instance, better efficiency can mean more horsepower. This can be accomplished with higher compression which gives more horsepower. But this clashes with the need for lower emmissions as higher compression raises NOx emmissions. Hence the development of the three way catalytic converter which in a very narroe range of emissions (near stoichiometric) will reduce all three levels of CO, HC and NOx.
I think that the decline in muscle cars is not so much related to standards, but to a changing perspective on cars. When muscle cars were born, family cars were big and rear wheel drive. The muscle cars were in essence derived from the family hauler. Over time, the family car evolved to smaller front wheel drive conveyances (notice I did not call then cars.....real cars are rear wheel drive IMHO). The one advantage of front wheel drive is it takes less volume to package within a platform, as there is no intrusion into the passenger compartment.
So we now have a generation or two whose only persepective on cars is pieces of crap. So when they turn to performace they are going to start with what they know, that is, the family front wheel drives family hauler. I suppose it could be argued that in this context, the standards forced the family conveyance to become more efficient and smaller, which triggered this trend.
Food for thought. Good luck. I suspect your paper will be thought provoking!!
Posts: 383 | From: Oakville, Ontario Canada | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Thanks Bill. Great thoughts. Not sure yet how to tackle this report yet, haha, probably gonna go more general and say how the car itself has changed and evolved around the environmental issues surrounding us today. I wanted to tie certain aspects of the 'muscle car' in there but might not be feasable since my report has to do with SOMETHING about the environment or it's impact. Thank you for your responses so far!! Posts: 2651 | From: Enola (Harrisburg Area), Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by DanPazich: and say how the car itself has changed and evolved around the environmental issues surrounding us today.
Keep in mind that as of '01 or '02 (not sure which), the F-bod (of course the penultimate muscle car )achieved L.E.V status (low emissions vehicle). Given that muscle cars from the 60's would be burning (leaded)fuel at the rate of 10-12 mpg, I would assume that a 21st century muscle car attaining L.E.V. status is reasonably significant - especially when considered in light of the fact that said 21st century F-body would totally annihilate virtually all of those muscle cars from the 60's and 70's in acceleration runs(with of course the rare exception), not to mention in the areas of handling, braking and top speed as well.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)achieved L.E.V status (low emissions vehicle). Given that muscle cars from the 60's would be burning (leaded)fuel at the rate of 10-12 mpg, I would assume that a 21st century muscle car attaining L.E.V. status is reasonably significant - especially when considered in light of the fact that said 21st century F-body would totally annihilate virtually all of those muscle cars from the 60's and 70's in acceleration runs(with of course the rare exception), not to mention in the areas of handling, braking and top speed as well. 
