Recently, I read an article in a print copy of Hemmings Muscle Machines (a subsidiary of Hemmings Motor News that focuses solely on American "muscle cars"), November 2012 issue, called "Green Power". The article, a sort of spoof on the "going green" campaign, features a Palmetto Green 1966 Pontiac GTO. I thoroughly enjoyed it, partly because of the mechanical humor, but also because it was well written. The author listed these reasons for his belief that the '66 GTO is actually a "green", or environmentally conscious, car:
- The car's color is Palmetto, a green hued paint.
- The '66 GTO is a 60's "mid-size" car, but by today's definition that actually means it is slightly longer than a new Cadillac Escalade (an SUV). "Both machines will fit five people with little trouble. Both employ body-on-frame construction. (And today, a GTO this nice will probably run you new-Escalade money.) Yet the GTO is a comparative flyweight: it weighs an entire ton less than Caddy's big truck. Fewer raw materials, check."
- "As for those materials... the GTO is largely metal, with some glass and plastic bits...and steel is plentiful here in the U.S. Increasingly, plastic rivals metal in our new cars' makeup, inside and out. (So the new machine is made of lighter materials, and still weighs a ton more? Really?)"
- "Plus, plastic is a petrochemical derivative. If weaning ourselves off oil is one of the goals of the green movement, and cars are increasingly comprised of plastic, doesn't this become self defeating? And don't get us started on a Prius's batteries, which use Canadian-sourced nickel, which is then shipped across the Pacific to make batteries, then shipped again worldwide. What's all that transport back and forth worth, environmentally?"
- Telling the story of the GTO's conception: the Chevy Volt cost $750 million to develop, which is nothing compared to the '96 Ford Taurus ($3 billion in 1996 dollars—and on a carry-over platform) and the '93 Ford Contour ($6 billion in 1993 dollars). Then the GTO: "Five Pontiac bigwigs look at a '64 Pontiac Tempest on a four-post lift and think, "Hey, we could wedge a 389 in there." They did, slapped on some badges and a hood scoop, and the result was sent down the assembly line."
- "The occasional urge to open things up (as we had an opportunity to do) is unavoidable in a machine like a GTO; the exhaust snarl, the slick move of the Hurst shifter, the deep-breathing triple carburetors—all beckon you to get on it now and again. That's not a particularly eco-friendly state, granted. Yet, at cruising speeds, only the GTO's center carburetor (a two-barrel carb, thank you) is active. Reduced fuel intake means reduced emissions. The four-speed is also a crucial ingredient here. Automatics are heavier and sap more of an engine's power than a manually shifted transmission. Plus, you (and not a vacuum line or solenoid) control the revs at which you shift."
- "And while cruising may not sound environmentally responsible, in Brian's (the owner) case, there are always two people going to the same place in the GTO, so automatically, it's a carpool—two people in a 16 MPG car burns as much fuel as two people going to the same place, each driving a 32 MPG car, so we're going to consider that a form of efficiency."
As you can see, there is a bit of sarcastic humor written into this article. People are always ranking on muscle cars because of their poor emissions and fuel mileage, so it's nice to take a step back and appreciate them, and they can even be comparatively efficient at times, too.
Here's a link to the original article.
Here's a link to the original article.
