Guy gets yelled at by a Prius driver for having a diesel truck

AF, I've read that all the "new" safety standards for cars are what destroyed their efficiency....I only wish we still had the option of trading freedom for safety these days. No longer an option unless you can rescue a "clunker" from the government destructo-bin.


The safety standard are part of it. Illogical emission starters are the other part.

One of the main reasons I don't buy new cars.

1: They weigh to much with all the safety bullshit.
2: The emission components are just more parts to break (why my daily driver is a fed-spec car in California, and the systems hardly make a difference anyways, if any.)
3: Increases demand for building of new cars, which makes pollution.
4: With very few exeptions, new cars are build like shit. (I buy American from before 1970, and 1970-1995 for certain Japanese cars (Nissan/Datsun mostly, and Mazda rotaries))
5: Somewhat relates to number 2 and 4, older cars are just simpler. It makes them easier to work on and more reliable. I feel like I need a PhD in computer sciences to work on modern cars.
 
Last edited:
Hell, these got damn near that, and that was over 45 years ago.

1960-1965-ford-falcon-1962.jpg

Yep, as tested in '62 the Falcon with a 144 six and 3 on the tree got 32.x MPG highway and would probably be considered a mid-sized car by today's standards. The '62 was the same car as the '60... So cars were getting low-mid 30s for MPG in 1960. With 6 cylinder engines, no overdrive, no fuel injection, etc. If you want to confirm the MPG numbers it's in the '62 Falcon sales brochures... I can dig up an image if anyone wants it.

For a while I had a '63 Falcon with a 144 and 3 on the tree. It was a great and simple carb. With a rune-up, some more timing and a quicker curve, and a carb rebuild and tube I was hitting mid 30s for MPG on the highway. My plan was to convert the three speed to a T5 to get an overdrive gear and not have so much gear spread so I wouldn't have to wind it out so much before shifting. Goal was to hit 40+ MPG and I think it would be very reasonable to do so.

Unfortunately some guy turned left in front of me when I was about 20' from him and t-boned him, there was nowhere for me to got. 100% his fault, police report reflected that. It actualyl happened right outside a police station, so a bunch of cops came running out. Instead of worrying out my health or safety, as my face hit the steering wheel and was bleeding down my face and had some teeth knocked out, knees into the metal dash and couldn't move my legs, and sometime when I blacked out I bounced off the roof in the back seat and had blood running down the back of my head from a large gash... The cops immediately were treating me like a criminal, asking if I was wearing a seat belt, why I was not wearing a seat belt, not wearing a seatbelt is illegal, and otherwise being threatening. This has been every experience I've had with the police, they are hunting for ways to keep you down, steal your money, put you in jail, and otherwise harass and intimidate.

Anyhow, I responded by asking him what year my car was. He wouldn't respond. I told him he should know these things since that is critical to the questions he's asking. I said it was a '63 and asked what the significant connection was between a 1963 vehicle and what he was asking. He responded with more intimidation and threats of fines. I explained that as a police officer enforcing a seat belt law he should know what year seat belts became federally mandated, what years all vehicle manufacturers offered them as options, and what years they became standard equipment. For Ford they were optional equipment in '63 and in '65 lap belts became standard equipment as mandated by law and shoulder belts were optional on most vehicles. He quieted down after that. Typical police, ignorant of the law, ignorant of individual liberty, and only concerned with instilling fear in us not in their "above the law" club.

Regardless, the issue with current poor MPG in new vehicles, even econoboxes, is the federal government will not allow these fuel efficient vehicles. The DOT mandates safety standards and forces these on people. This adds significant weight to the vehicle. The EPA mandates emissions equipment and emissions levels. This significantly reduces fuel economy. There is no freedom of choice in the new car market. They're all cookie cutter vehicles which are far more expensive than they need to and and use far more fuel than they need to. For this reason I stick with my old vehicles. They are simple, cheap, and efficient. Unfortunately the terrible "cash for clunkers" program has taken many great older vehicles in fine condition off the market, and inflated the cost of these older, cheap to own and maintain, and fuel efficient vehicles. This has not only limits our freedom of choice but hurts the poor and middle class the most, as these are the people who will buy used vehicles and can not afford to take out huge loans for overpriced new vehicles. Big government wants to force these people into loans they can't afford for vehicles they don't need.
 
1. She is fat. Does she know how bad it is for the environment from the deforestation caused by farming? Yet she just eats eats and overeats. She is a fat gluttony bitch. If she really cared about stopping deforestation (which is very destructive) then she would stop being a gluttony whore.

In fact, the chemicals used in fast food and processed food (which she eats a lot of I bet) are very bad not only in terms of health, but they are bad for the enviroment and created by factories that pollute the environment.

2. CO2 released by cars is actually GOOD for the environment and drastically improves agricultural yields, and helps wild trees, wild plants grow much faster (which is certainly a good thing). Also if she is so brainwashed to think CO2 is bad, then she should know that the 10,000 farms that cater to her massive legendary appetite have tons of cows which release huge amounts of CO2.

3. The chemicals used to make the battery for her car are not green at all.

4.. If she really cared about alternative energy, she would support ending the government ban on Tesla free energy, which is BY FAR the best form of energy period.

But noooooooooo she is a liberal who blindly trusts the government 100% and it just isn't possible that big energy, big oil, the government could get in bed together and suppress free energy which would have put them all out of business!
 
Last edited:
I drive a 95 honda civic, 330,xxx miles on the body, less than 64k on the engine(got engine from Japan with 40K on it:eek:;)) hydro locked first engine.

T3 Super 60 Turbo, cam, head port, blah blah.... around 320 whp on old 1.6 L 4 cyl engine:cool: 43 MPG when not "in it", 30-34 MPG when boosting all over the place.

The engine I have in now is bone stock, still gets around 40 MPG.:cool:

OBD1, no tracking by big brother, no rev limiter, so speed limiter-and I get decent mileage, compared to that prius thingy. I loves my fuel injection.
 
I rented one of those last weekend. Great car, much bretter than the previous Golf (which I think they called Rabbit in the states)

My best friend just bought himself an Audi A8 with a 4.2L V8. Had it converter to use LPG, now he gets the same amount of power (350hp) and LPG costs 1/3 as much as gas in Germany. Conversion set him back €2500 but he'll make that money back in 4 months with the savings. Also the great thing is, his car now has two has tanks and he can switch between LPG and gasoline with the touch of a button.

In the U.S. your friend would get a bill from the government for the fuel taxes he is no longer paying. If you drive on the gov's roads you will pay!
 
Model T's got better gas mileage than most of the crap we drive today and they were built better, cheaper.

They also carried less, had fewer amenities and were not nearly as safe. If you want true savings just walk and live in a cave. LOL.
 
Back
Top