Speed Center contributor Jeff Zurschmeide weighs in on who he thinks would be the best presidential choice come the November 4 elections. Do we need someone that will continue to push fossil fuels, keeping the lifeblood of our enthusiast economy flowing? Or do we need someone to look to the future? What does automotive history tell us?
The way I see it, the future lies in alternative energies. Obama's an
alternative energy guy - McCain's very much into keeping the gasoline
flowing until it's gone. "Drill Baby Drill" is not a way forward.
Neither candidate is going to touch speed limits, radar guns, race tracks, or anything nuts & boltsy. The issue is basic energy for getting things going. Eight Years of Bush didn't do anything good for gas prices (unless you're an oil company executive) and McCain says he's going to drill - just do more of the same thing.
Therefore, it seems to me that the smart performance enthusiast should be looking ahead to other-than-petrol motivation.
When you really compare a modern muscle car to its predecessors from the 1960s, the modern car beats the old one in every way. Take a 2009 Evo or STI and a 300 HP 'Cuda or Camaro Z28 and compare them side by side. The old cars is fast in a straight line, but handles like crap compared to the modern car. The old car isn't comfortable, has few good features (maybe an AM radio compared to your iPod-enabled 6-disc changer with 8 speakers), and if you take it to a race where each car has 1 gallon of gas to make it to the finish line, there's no comparison at all.
How did we get here to this great automotive place? Well, stereos aside, we got here because we consumers demanded performance, mileage, handling, comfort, and amenities. And we got here because the government demanded low emissions, mileage, and safety. The car companies took 30 years to R&D their way from a Rochester Quadrajet feeding a 454 cu. in. V8 to a 2.0-liter twin scroll turbo direct tuned injection DOHC engine that makes the same power. And we reduced emissions by 90% and doubled the gas mileage at the same time.
And in adjusted dollars, the cars cost about the same.
And at every stage, guys like Obama said "let's fund that R&D and demand results" and guys like McCain said "You're gonna kill the auto industry with all those requirements."
Well, GM and Ford and Chrysler may be hurting at the moment, but the auto industry is still very much with us. Financial conservatives and laissez-faire capitalists call that "Creative Destruction" - as new and nimble businesses displace old ones that can no longer compete. So this isn't just a Liberal vs. Conservative thing - it's a status quo vs. the future thing.
I love old cars more than most readers here at Speed Center - I have a barn full of old, dirty, inefficient sports cars, and a lifetime of happy memories that go with them. I don't plan to change them or give them up. But I do plan to enjoy my 30 MPG MINI Cooper S and all its modern conveniences, and when they come out with the next ultra-clean, ultra-fast, ultra-fun car that runs on sunshine and poops out daisy-scented fresh air from the back, I'll buy one of those, because when you get down to it, it's all about the driving.
That's why I'm voting for Obama.
Neither candidate is going to touch speed limits, radar guns, race tracks, or anything nuts & boltsy. The issue is basic energy for getting things going. Eight Years of Bush didn't do anything good for gas prices (unless you're an oil company executive) and McCain says he's going to drill - just do more of the same thing.
Therefore, it seems to me that the smart performance enthusiast should be looking ahead to other-than-petrol motivation.When you really compare a modern muscle car to its predecessors from the 1960s, the modern car beats the old one in every way. Take a 2009 Evo or STI and a 300 HP 'Cuda or Camaro Z28 and compare them side by side. The old cars is fast in a straight line, but handles like crap compared to the modern car. The old car isn't comfortable, has few good features (maybe an AM radio compared to your iPod-enabled 6-disc changer with 8 speakers), and if you take it to a race where each car has 1 gallon of gas to make it to the finish line, there's no comparison at all.
How did we get here to this great automotive place? Well, stereos aside, we got here because we consumers demanded performance, mileage, handling, comfort, and amenities. And we got here because the government demanded low emissions, mileage, and safety. The car companies took 30 years to R&D their way from a Rochester Quadrajet feeding a 454 cu. in. V8 to a 2.0-liter twin scroll turbo direct tuned injection DOHC engine that makes the same power. And we reduced emissions by 90% and doubled the gas mileage at the same time.
And in adjusted dollars, the cars cost about the same.
And at every stage, guys like Obama said "let's fund that R&D and demand results" and guys like McCain said "You're gonna kill the auto industry with all those requirements."
Well, GM and Ford and Chrysler may be hurting at the moment, but the auto industry is still very much with us. Financial conservatives and laissez-faire capitalists call that "Creative Destruction" - as new and nimble businesses displace old ones that can no longer compete. So this isn't just a Liberal vs. Conservative thing - it's a status quo vs. the future thing.
I love old cars more than most readers here at Speed Center - I have a barn full of old, dirty, inefficient sports cars, and a lifetime of happy memories that go with them. I don't plan to change them or give them up. But I do plan to enjoy my 30 MPG MINI Cooper S and all its modern conveniences, and when they come out with the next ultra-clean, ultra-fast, ultra-fun car that runs on sunshine and poops out daisy-scented fresh air from the back, I'll buy one of those, because when you get down to it, it's all about the driving.
That's why I'm voting for Obama.
Who do you think is the better 'car guy' candidate?
|
|
Leave a comment