Quote:
Originally Posted by some_other_dave
Depends on what you regard as "emissions control".
. . .
Fuel injection was, at least for a while, regarded as "emissions control equipment". And that is one of the main things that is responsible for the increase of HP, the increase of fuel economy, and the decrease of emissions...
-soD
|
As I said, and am happy to say again, I have no issue with emissions control as long as it does not cost an extra drop of gas.
Using the 65 Mustang in comparison to the 08 GT is kind of cheating though.
I'll definitely give up the idea that most auto-manufacturers are aiming for a balance of HP/FE. They are. The notion of the golden mean and having substantial horsepower and getting out of the teens in FE are what they like. Most people love to talk about the cars that do not follow this golden mean: Ferrari F40, F50, Enzo, McClaren F1 LM, Lamborghini Murcielago, Diablo, superlegarra series, Mazerati MC12 and the list goes on.
I love talking about some of those cars because they were revolutionary in the development of huge horsepower and because of them we see advances today. Examples are more sturdy clutch plates, VTEC, and many more.
My point is the 1965 Mustang and GT 500 of that golden era are designed like our F1s, Enzos and MC12s. Around the 60s Citroen released a vehicle that could get 60+ MPG because it was on the other end of the spectrum. I think my 35 MPG 93 Del Sol would have trouble emitting less emissions per distance than the Citroen. The auto industry has changed because the Mustang is not just a collection item its a daily driver for thousands of people. Can't do the 700 HP and daily commuter tandem, so they broke it even and went 300 HP 20-30 mpg.
I'm not arguing to make cars dirtier on purpose. I'm arguing maximize fuel economy period. Add all the emissions controls you like so long as FE stays the same or improves, and you save global emissions.