2010 Coupe without camo...
Bullitt Member
Joined: April 28, 2008
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
FYI the difference between now, and 35 years ago. Gas prices weren't nearly close to $4 gal. at the pump, nor were their federal C.A.F.E regulations, that require all vehicles must reach 30 M.P.G within the next 11 years.
In addition, we also didn't have technology, such as fuel cell, hydrogen, and biofuels either.
And most of all, fossil/carbon fuels weren't nearly a threat to the environment 35 years ago, like they are today. Such as the ozone layer, and global warming.
That being said, whether you choose to accept it, or not. The days of the internal combustion engine, are gradually drawing to a close. As the environment demands for more renewable sources of energy !
In addition, we also didn't have technology, such as fuel cell, hydrogen, and biofuels either.
And most of all, fossil/carbon fuels weren't nearly a threat to the environment 35 years ago, like they are today. Such as the ozone layer, and global warming.
That being said, whether you choose to accept it, or not. The days of the internal combustion engine, are gradually drawing to a close. As the environment demands for more renewable sources of energy !
Long lines at gas stations, shortages, fist-fights over 2 gallon cans of gas; it was an ugly period. CAFE was born out of this nonsense, as was the 55 mph national speed limit.
You are, of course, correct in that the technology we have today didn't exist then. But the assumption by those who "knew" was that technology would advance rapidly and that we would all be driving electric cars by the turn of the century. Instead, technology brought a new golden age of the internal combustion engine.
I would differ with you on the environmental issues, though. Carbon fuels were considered to be poisoning the planet at at alarming rate. I lived in southern California in the early and mid '70s. The smog was unimaginable. That was one of the key reasons "everyone" said the internal combustion engine was dead. The hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen emissions were making the very air we breathed toxic. Many futurists predicted we would have to wear breathing masks outdoors by 1990.
The sulfur from coal-burning plants in the rust belt was producing acid rain at such a rate that the finishes on cars were literally being eaten away.
Ironically, the advent of catalytic converters and unleaded gas was hailed as the environmental savior, since the automotive emissions would be largely limited to water vapor and "harmless" CO2!
So much for that theory.
Even so, the CO2 issues notwithstanding, today's (big city) air is astonishingly clean compared to 35 years ago, automobile engines are cleaner, more powerful, and get better mileage than ever before.
As for fuel cells, hydrogen, biofuels, etc. well, they're simply not ready for prime time. Hydrogen is, of course, an incredibly clean fuel, producing only water vapor as an "emission", but it takes more energy to produce a cubic foot of hydrogen than there is in the cubic foot of hydrogen. So it is a net loss, energy-wise.
Biofuels have their own problems. While it's OK to say we'll use organic waste to produce methanol/ethanol fuels, economic reality is that it is easier/faster/cheaper to produce such fuels from pre-waste organics (read: food!) Personally, I do not want my food prices to go up in order to drive!
No, I think the internal combustion engine will be around for quite a while. Newer technologies of direct injection and improvements in forced induction systems should keep it viable for some time. Until the oil supply REALLY dries up (another topic altogether).
Didn't mean to write a history book, nor offend anyone else's opinions. Just one man's perspective on things...
Last edited by Zoomie; Sep 30, 2008 at 10:12 AM.
Bullitt Member
Joined: December 17, 2007
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
unnoticedtrails: I never like blue and red together (
), but the recent camoflaged Grabber Blue Shelby with the red stripes may be some Special Edition paint scheme. You have done splendid work "removing" the camoflage!
I wish I knew how to photoshop. Back in the day, I was a wicked "car drawer"--drawing cars at school, at home, at college, at church, in the car, wherever. God only knows how much time I'd spend at the keyboard if I knew how to photoshop!
Greg "Eights" Ates
), but the recent camoflaged Grabber Blue Shelby with the red stripes may be some Special Edition paint scheme. You have done splendid work "removing" the camoflage!I wish I knew how to photoshop. Back in the day, I was a wicked "car drawer"--drawing cars at school, at home, at college, at church, in the car, wherever. God only knows how much time I'd spend at the keyboard if I knew how to photoshop!
Greg "Eights" Ates
Cobra R Member
Joined: October 10, 2004
Posts: 1,627
Likes: 1
From: Location: Indy
unnoticedtrails: I never like blue and red together (), but the recent camoflaged Grabber Blue Shelby with the red stripes may be some Special Edition paint scheme. You have done splendid work "removing" the camoflage!
I wish I knew how to photoshop. Back in the day, I was a wicked "car drawer"--drawing cars at school, at home, at college, at church, in the car, wherever. God only knows how much time I'd spend at the keyboard if I knew how to photoshop!
Greg "Eights" Ates
), but the recent camoflaged Grabber Blue Shelby with the red stripes may be some Special Edition paint scheme. You have done splendid work "removing" the camoflage!I wish I knew how to photoshop. Back in the day, I was a wicked "car drawer"--drawing cars at school, at home, at college, at church, in the car, wherever. God only knows how much time I'd spend at the keyboard if I knew how to photoshop!
Greg "Eights" Ates
Yes - excellent chop - can you do it again with white stripes?
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: April 27, 2004
Posts: 5,472
Likes: 65
From: Colorado
unnoticedtrails: I never like blue and red together (), but the recent camoflaged Grabber Blue Shelby with the red stripes may be some Special Edition paint scheme. You have done splendid work "removing" the camoflage!
I wish I knew how to photoshop. Back in the day, I was a wicked "car drawer"--drawing cars at school, at home, at college, at church, in the car, wherever. God only knows how much time I'd spend at the keyboard if I knew how to photoshop!
Greg "Eights" Ates
), but the recent camoflaged Grabber Blue Shelby with the red stripes may be some Special Edition paint scheme. You have done splendid work "removing" the camoflage!I wish I knew how to photoshop. Back in the day, I was a wicked "car drawer"--drawing cars at school, at home, at college, at church, in the car, wherever. God only knows how much time I'd spend at the keyboard if I knew how to photoshop!
Greg "Eights" Ates
That means a lot.
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: April 27, 2004
Posts: 5,472
Likes: 65
From: Colorado
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 10,648
Likes: 2,516
From: Carnegie, PA
Well, gas prices weren't absolutely $4.00, but in relative terms it was comparable.
Long lines at gas stations, shortages, fist-fights over 2 gallon cans of gas; it was an ugly period. CAFE was born out of this nonsense, as was the 55 mph national speed limit.
You are, of course, correct in that the technology we have today didn't exist then. But the assumption by those who "knew" was that technology would advance rapidly and that we would all be driving electric cars by the turn of the century. Instead, technology brought a new golden age of the internal combustion engine.
I would differ with you on the environmental issues, though. Carbon fuels were considered to be poisoning the planet at at alarming rate. I lived in southern California in the early and mid '70s. The smog was unimaginable. That was one of the key reasons "everyone" said the internal combustion engine was dead. The hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen emissions were making the very air we breathed toxic. Many futurists predicted we would have to wear breathing masks outdoors by 1990.
The sulfur from coal-burning plants in the rust belt was producing acid rain at such a rate that the finishes on cars were literally being eaten away.
Ironically, the advent of catalytic converters and unleaded gas was hailed as the environmental savior, since the automotive emissions would be largely limited to water vapor and "harmless" CO2!
So much for that theory.
Even so, the CO2 issues notwithstanding, today's (big city) air is astonishingly clean compared to 35 years ago, automobile engines are cleaner, more powerful, and get better mileage than ever before.
As for fuel cells, hydrogen, biofuels, etc. well, they're simply not ready for prime time. Hydrogen is, of course, an incredibly clean fuel, producing only water vapor as an "emission", but it takes more energy to produce a cubic foot of hydrogen than there is in the cubic foot of hydrogen. So it is a net loss, energy-wise.
Biofuels have their own problems. While it's OK to say we'll use organic waste to produce methanol/ethanol fuels, economic reality is that it is easier/faster/cheaper to produce such fuels from pre-waste organics (read: food!) Personally, I do not want my food prices to go up in order to drive!
No, I think the internal combustion engine will be around for quite a while. Newer technologies of direct injection and improvements in forced induction systems should keep it viable for some time. Until the oil supply REALLY dries up (another topic altogether).
Didn't mean to write a history book, nor offend anyone else's opinions. Just one man's perspective on things...
Long lines at gas stations, shortages, fist-fights over 2 gallon cans of gas; it was an ugly period. CAFE was born out of this nonsense, as was the 55 mph national speed limit.
You are, of course, correct in that the technology we have today didn't exist then. But the assumption by those who "knew" was that technology would advance rapidly and that we would all be driving electric cars by the turn of the century. Instead, technology brought a new golden age of the internal combustion engine.
I would differ with you on the environmental issues, though. Carbon fuels were considered to be poisoning the planet at at alarming rate. I lived in southern California in the early and mid '70s. The smog was unimaginable. That was one of the key reasons "everyone" said the internal combustion engine was dead. The hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen emissions were making the very air we breathed toxic. Many futurists predicted we would have to wear breathing masks outdoors by 1990.
The sulfur from coal-burning plants in the rust belt was producing acid rain at such a rate that the finishes on cars were literally being eaten away.
Ironically, the advent of catalytic converters and unleaded gas was hailed as the environmental savior, since the automotive emissions would be largely limited to water vapor and "harmless" CO2!
So much for that theory.
Even so, the CO2 issues notwithstanding, today's (big city) air is astonishingly clean compared to 35 years ago, automobile engines are cleaner, more powerful, and get better mileage than ever before.
As for fuel cells, hydrogen, biofuels, etc. well, they're simply not ready for prime time. Hydrogen is, of course, an incredibly clean fuel, producing only water vapor as an "emission", but it takes more energy to produce a cubic foot of hydrogen than there is in the cubic foot of hydrogen. So it is a net loss, energy-wise.
Biofuels have their own problems. While it's OK to say we'll use organic waste to produce methanol/ethanol fuels, economic reality is that it is easier/faster/cheaper to produce such fuels from pre-waste organics (read: food!) Personally, I do not want my food prices to go up in order to drive!
No, I think the internal combustion engine will be around for quite a while. Newer technologies of direct injection and improvements in forced induction systems should keep it viable for some time. Until the oil supply REALLY dries up (another topic altogether).
Didn't mean to write a history book, nor offend anyone else's opinions. Just one man's perspective on things...
Another possibility is Sugar Cane, as Brazil has been very successful in converting this into ethanol for over 30 years, and has thus been independent of foreign oil ever since.
And then there's also Natural Gas, which not only is much cleaner for the environment. But is also ready for prime time, and isn't considered as a wasteful source of energy.
As for the internal combustion engine being around for quite awhile. Sure, newer technologies should keep it viable until fuel cells/hydrogen, and lithium/ion battery technologies are ready for prime time.
But in the long run, the only way we're going to finally become totally independent of foreign oil, is by building cars that use renewable, non carbon energy sources !
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; Oct 2, 2008 at 12:20 AM.
Bullitt Member
Joined: April 28, 2008
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
You definitely bring up some very interesting points, however as far as biofuels are concerned. Consider (Switch Grass) which isn't considered as a food source, and actually requires far less energy to convert into ethanol than Corn. In which there's also an abundant supply of Switch Grass right here in the U.S. as it grows wild in the plain and midwestern states.
Another possibility is Sugar Cane, as Brazil has been very successful in converting this into ethanol for over 30 years, and has thus been independent of foreign oil ever since.
And then there's also Natural Gas, which not only is much cleaner for the environment. But is also ready for prime time, and isn't considered as a wasteful source of energy.
As for the internal combustion engine being around for quite awhile. Sure, newer technologies should keep it viable until fuel cells/hydrogen, and lithium/ion battery technologies are ready for prime time.
But in the long run, the only way we're going to finally become totally independent of foreign oil, is by building cars that use renewable, non carbon energy sources !
Another possibility is Sugar Cane, as Brazil has been very successful in converting this into ethanol for over 30 years, and has thus been independent of foreign oil ever since.
And then there's also Natural Gas, which not only is much cleaner for the environment. But is also ready for prime time, and isn't considered as a wasteful source of energy.
As for the internal combustion engine being around for quite awhile. Sure, newer technologies should keep it viable until fuel cells/hydrogen, and lithium/ion battery technologies are ready for prime time.
But in the long run, the only way we're going to finally become totally independent of foreign oil, is by building cars that use renewable, non carbon energy sources !
But I'm gonna hang onto my dinosaur-burner as long as I can, because nothing in the new technology can equal the thrill of a good V8 with the hammer down, running manually through the gears. I may ADD a parallel hybrid to my garage for economic/environmental reasons, but I suspect I'll be long gone before the internal combustion automobile engine is...
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 10,648
Likes: 2,516
From: Carnegie, PA
Agree, agree, agree, and agree.
But I'm gonna hang onto my dinosaur-burner as long as I can, because nothing in the new technology can equal the thrill of a good V8 with the hammer down, running manually through the gears. I may ADD a parallel hybrid to my garage for economic/environmental reasons, but I suspect I'll be long gone before the internal combustion automobile engine is...
But I'm gonna hang onto my dinosaur-burner as long as I can, because nothing in the new technology can equal the thrill of a good V8 with the hammer down, running manually through the gears. I may ADD a parallel hybrid to my garage for economic/environmental reasons, but I suspect I'll be long gone before the internal combustion automobile engine is...
But on the other hand, if we're able to develop biofuels such as Switch Grass, Sugar Cane, Liquid Coal, and most of all, Natural Gas.
Then perhaps the internal combustion engine will survive well beyond 30 years. Or at least I hope so anyhow.
Mach 1 Member
Joined: May 16, 2008
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver
I think this should be pretty representative of what the rear looks like, and I like it a lot!
I would love to see a look at the GT front end with and without the blacked out grill, if we're doing requests, haha!
Just kidding, nice work!
I would love to see a look at the GT front end with and without the blacked out grill, if we're doing requests, haha!
Just kidding, nice work!
Legacy TMS Member
Joined: April 27, 2004
Posts: 5,472
Likes: 65
From: Colorado
