By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Besides, the gov't gives you slack after 25 years, so there's no need to complain.
Even our revered jury system creates some injustices, but not enough to warrant abandoning the system.
If you want an "enthusiast's vehicle", you can certainly use it on the track and keep it off road. Or you can spend the $$$ to make it as clean as everybody else 1991 car. Fair is fair.
Let's put our trust in multinational corporations. Let's bring back the good ol' days of air you can chew and rivers that burn.
More to the topic, while a few non-complying cars would do little harm in the grand scheme of things, it's more efficient to just make a set of rules and enforce them, than to make exceptions. If you are unhappy with the rules, write your congressman or run for office. Incessant whining gets you nowhere.
I wonder what the average salary is for an EPA/DOT import enforcer compared to the working world in general. Now you know why it exists. More overpaid public sector waste, with huge egos and a brainwashed sheeple to fall for it.
Well at least you're not bitter ;->
I think 20-year-old bimmers fall under under "it'd sure be nice" but it's hard to figure this as a big deal. Or the heavy hand of government, or whatever.
Of course the rules are arbitrary -- what rule isn't? -- but they make some sort of sense, and approximately 37 people in the US actually care.
I'm not dissing you; I sorta feel your pain, but I think it's part and parcel of the U.S. leadership role in emissions controls. And if you take the long view, that's one of the biggest tech success stories over the past 30, 40 years... yeah the first controlled cars stunk, but today you get 2.0 l 200 hp cars that when warmed up have emissions that are hard to measure, they're so clean.
The engineers made it happen, but US regulations -- and the credo "every problem has an engineering solution" -- made it happen.
Preachily yours -Mathias
I could put my heavy polluter fintail into daily service if I wished, and in the US, to be "business friendly", commercial vehicles are virtually exempt from emissions standards. But import a 20 year old weirdo car that you'll drive 1000 miles a year if that? Criminal!
The worst revisionist history in my life time is that - somehow - the U.S. government "saved" the domestic auto industry. Did the Beltway Brain Trust really engineer one of the, "...biggest tech success stories over the past 30, 40 years?" No.
Policy makers and regulation "leadership" saved us? It wasn't the computer chip or the tech guys who developed it? You mean it was Ralph Nader and product liability litigation all along which helped save our industry and jobs? That's the "long view?!" Really? I want my Corvair back, thanks anyway...
Praise the Malaise Era Regulations all you want my friend, but that is the same era in which Detroit lost its mojo with a little help from your U.S. regulation heroes. Recall that Ford in North America failed badly in the late 70s and was saved from collapse only by Ford's profitable European operations.
And since then? Is the government bailout of GM a success? Funny, when GM really WAS a booming success back in the 60s, the feds were itching to bust it up! Now, government insists that GM is a "success" simply because government finally owns it and therefore it's too big to fail, right? Sick joke. GM today is only a shell of what it used to be. Thanks for killing off the best part first, and then keeping the vegetated remains of the General hooked up in the ICU!
Look at what GM was just 35 years ago - its factories, employees, and its market share then. Look at GM now and tell me that it's not already gone. Hell it was over a long time ago no matter what the government claims today or how they intend to polish and (re)write the history books. Yeah, Mr. President, this whole wrecked economy will buff right out. And the Beltway Brain Trust will lead us to another "victory" like they did with Detroit. How many more of those can we survive?
i remember the "katalysator" discussion in germany around the late 70s/early 80s, and how air pollution was a big issue then, with the forests under serious stress, and much of it coming from cars.
there was much hand-wringing, and little was done. gas had to get more expensive, people should drive less, cars had to get smaller etc. etc.
what i appreciate about america, and in a different way than those of you who grew up here, is the idea that every problem can be solved. it's a stupid belief on the face of it, of course, since not everything can be fixed by the guys with the slide rules, but if you really believe it, AND a solution exists, you will find it.
this is a more positive and productive outlook than what i was used to.
where government steps in is in providing the impetus to make it happen.
almost nobody would pay $2,000 for optional air bags, but if they're mandated in every car, EVERYBODY will buy them for $600. to me, there is value in that kind of mandate.
and i'm not blind to some of the idiocy that has been regulated into cars; from motor-mouse belts to ignition/belt interlocks to air bags that kill people in order to protect those who chose not to wear a belt. but overall, i believe we have benefited from government regulation on motor vehicles.
i was not trying to say anything about the domestic auto industry. my comment was only about the interplay between government regulation and engineering.
>> Praise the Malaise Era Regulations all you want my friend
i'll be happy to have a discussion, but please don't patronize me.
keep in mind, that a 'liberal' in western europe is by definition a 'conservative.'
cheers -mathias
i'll be happy to have a discussion, but please don't patronize me.
Relax, it was a typo. I meant to post "my fiend."
As in, "Now get back to your Black Forest tree hugging, over-regulated, Naderite lifestyle, you liberal fiend!" :shades:
edited: In case the emoticon doesn't work, "just kidding!"
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/449/jaguarmkix19wh.jpg/
If anyone here knows how to look it up, I'm trying to find out if there's a particular name that Jaguar had for its green that year. For example, in 1979 my folks got a new Datsun 210 in green, but Datsun didn't call it green even for that humble car, but instead "Emerald Mist."
Did Jaguar have a similarly interesting (or silly, depending on your point of view) name for this color. Or was it just "green." I've ordered a brochure for the car from ebay, which may have the answers, but that will take a week to get here, at least. And so I'm wondering if someone here knows or can look it up.
Also, any comments in general about the car and/or how it was received and perceived in the US would be helpful. For instance, any juicy quotes from old car mags would be great.
The list price seems to have been about $5750, which is about $44k in today's money. But I assume if it had the optional power steering it would have been more. And could you even get a Jag with ac back then? Probably not. 4 speed manual was, I assume, the transmission. But was auto available? For a lady probably the auto would have been the choice if it existed.
Thanks in advance, Ben
Yes, you could get an automatic transmission, a rather clunky Borg Warner 3-speed. I think the color was called "suede green".
They weighed 2 tons but moved along pretty well with their XK engine, for a big car.
Their build quality does not match their looks however.
Very affordable, though, should you want one. You can get Rolls Royce looks for Rambler money.
I'd opt for the Mark IX myself, with disc brakes. Early Mark brakes are kinda scary for the car's size and power.
it lists two different greens for the Jag Mark VIII: British Racing Green (which I'm pretty sure that one's not) and Sherwood Green.
FWIW, I googled "1957 Jaguar Sherwood Green" and this was one of the pictures I found: http://www.finecars.cc/typo3temp/GB/7ca3184315.jpg
**Edit: when I typed in "1957 Jaguar Suede Green", what looked like the same car popped up, but in the description, it read "Sherwood Green with Suede Green interior"...so, take this with a grain of salt!
Many thanks! Sherwood Green is the color, I believe. Nice name.
Here's a another pic from the film:
http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/wiki/1000_Frames_of_Vertigo_%281958%29_-_frame_295
So how much did this car actually cost? I have one source that says the list was c.$4800. Another that it was c.$5800. My guess, and it is only that, is that both are right--you take the list price and add the options of automatic trans and power steering and that might well add $1000 way back then....?
And how does all this compare to, say, the price of a similarly equipped Buick or Cadillac?
The Mark VIIIs are beautiful, I think. I mean compare this to a 1957 Buick. I like 57 Buicks, but this to me seems much prettier. But I'm interested in what people at the time thought of them. Even though they weren't hugely expensive, they seemed to drip with class and taste. I mean a Cadillac would be more gaudy, but this would, as a show of conspicuous consumption, indicate something more elegant, I assume?
The Brits know Jaguars as a car for the "middle class" (at least up to the 1970s) and as primarily a builder of sports cars and sports sedans--traditionally Jaguar was not a rich man's car by any means, nor a luxury car builder. The companion Jaguar of the time, the Mark I and later Mark II 3.4 and 3.8s, were even considered "gangster cars", due to their exposure in British crime dramas. Sterling Moss even rallyed a MK VII successfully, something you'd certainly never see with a contemporary Rolls.
American collectors still don't know what to make of the big Mark VIIs VIIIs IXs. They certainly don't bring a lot of money, so demand for them is pretty slim. I think they are viewed by "those in the know", quite rightly, as oddities, big and clumsy, and rather poorly built. They rust, they overheat, and except for the IXs, pretty scary to drive except either a) real slow or b) if you are Sterling Moss :P
To the casual passers-by though, they seem almost Rolls-Royce like, and you could get a lot of attention for your $$$, presuming you could keep one running without undue stress.
I know I seem hard on the car. I guess I view the car as one of those types that are "not what they pretend to be".
To my mind, Jaguar never built a really technically competent, dominant, superb luxury car, not even to this day.
http://www.tcpglobal.com/autocolorlibrary/aclchip.aspx?image=1960-jaguar-pg01.jp- g
Lots of color choice for an import car - 3 reds, 3 greys, 2 blues, 2 greens.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
The cheapest '58 Cadillac was the Series 62 hardtop coupe, which was $4784. The series 62 hardtop sedan was $4891. An automatic transmisison would have been standard, and I' pretty sure power steering/brakes were, as well. If you went to the DeVille level, it was $5251 for the hardtop coupe, $5497 for the hardtop sedan.
Buick's volume seller was the cheap Special, which actually undercut the Olds Golden 88, and wasn't much more expensive than the cheapest Dodges, Edsels, and Pontiacs. The 2-door sedan was $2636 and the 4-door was $2700. But with the luxury Buicks, a '58 Roadmaster started as $4667 for the hardtop sedan, $4557 for the hardtop coupe. The Limited was $5112 for the hardtop sedan, $5125 for the hardtop coupe.
As for air conditioning, back then I think it was around a $450-500 option, even on the Cadillacs.
I still don't see how it can be tied to banning 20 year old hobby car freakshows, however. That's all.
This system is simple. Not certified for USA emissions and DOT safety and newer than 25 years? Fine, don't bring it here.
Done!
Regarding junk, we have let China pretty much own our consumer market...junk aint the reason, these laws have been bought and paid for.
The history of the EPA/DOT regulations is more than one of government interference---it's a very interesting cautionary tale on many levels of complexity.
The automakers should have done what banks and insurance companies did...volunteer to write the rules, then get former employees appointed to the agencies that regulate them. :P
As for where this leaves the hobbyist, I'm more inclined to support the general welfare than the needs of a tiny group pining away for a 1991 BMW.
But nice to know I can still drive a commercial truck that pollutes like there's no tomorrow.
You are very right that the engineers should have acted, rather than the lawyers. Sadly, our executive class doesn't always grasp that...but some suits living in other lands sure did.
I don't feel very good about allowing some elite class of collectors to bring in dirty cars while I have to smog my nearly new MINI every two years.
I suppose 25 years was picked because most 25 year old cars would be dead by then.
A few years back, the state of Maryland changed their criteria for historic tags from 25 years or older to only 20. The way I found out about it was when a guy at work asked me about tagging antique cars. He said he had a 1986 Pontiac that he wanted to put historic tags on. I told him that it had to be 25 years or older, but he said he read somewhere it was only 20. I checked into it, and, sure enough, it WAS only 20!
Oh, as for that Pontiac he wanted to get the historic tags for? Well, I was hoping it was something up my alley like a Parisienne or Grand Prix, or even a Bonneville G. Or a Firebird/Trans Am. Nope. It was a T-1000!
I have to admit that, as soon as I found this out, I switched my '85 Silverado over to historic tags as soon as it was up for renewal. Yeah, in some respects it's taking advantage of the system. In addition to no more emissions tests every two years, registration went from $154.50 every two years to $51. But, that truck also travels less than 3,000 miles per year, which is about the limit many insurance companies put on classic cars. So, why shouldn't I take advantage of it?
My attitude though, is that the gov't should be greatful for what it IS getting from me, rather than what it isn't. If I so chose, I could take that truck off the road completely, and then, all of a sudden, the state gets NOTHING. Sure, $154.50, plus $14 every two months for an emissisons test is better than $51 every two years. BUT, $51 every two years is a helluva lot better than NOTHING! Plus, there's still profit to go around. That truck isn't the most fuel efficient thing in the world, so anybody who collects tax on gasoline makes out like a bandit every time I fire the thing up. It breaks down on occasion, so there goes some money to the local economy, plus associated taxes. I still have to pay $300 per year and insurance, for something that doesn't get driven that much, so again, a cash infusion into the local economy, plus associated taxes.
I know I might sound a bit arrogant in saying this, but my attitude, as an American citizen, is that the I am the government's CUSTOMER. NOT their servant. Do your job, and you get paid. Piss me off, and you might get punished.
I'm sure the gov't might see things a bit differently, though. :P
I think 25 years was chosen by a dartboard.
My fintail takes it a step further - year of manufacture plates, so no more yearly registration costs. But, I still buy gas and parts for it, and send it in for repairs as needed - so it puts a little back in.
A running driving T1000 is probably more rare than some legitimate classics these days :shades:
It's funny but my original post was in response to "revisionist history" ... where government takes credit for "saving" the domestic auto industry of which there is very little left. And now this... Detroit did not get the "stuffings" beat out of them as a consequence of failing to conform to any federal law. They always took a beating on labor and legacy costs, though.
Detroit actually did conform to fed regulations -- as is their custom. Compare how many DOT-EPA approved cars were built by GM alone during the 70s versus every carmaker from Asia combined and what does that tell you about compliance and conformity to the law?
If any backfiring, gas-swilling Mazda RX-3 survives today, with car doors sliced as thin as baloney, then I'll accept that as a period-correct example of Japanese conformity to U.S. market regs. Especially crash-worthiness.
The domestic car market had been built on the notion of cheap oil and gasoline - and plenty of it. When the market rules shifted, the government began regulating the car industry to suit government dictates - oblivious to the strain this put on Detroit to bring its strongest suit to the market, i.e., make money.
While I regret dragging up Saturn again, there has never been a successful domestic car maker who could make a profit building 3-box, 35mpg economy cars. But at the same time the government seemed intent on regulating domestics into a Saturn future. Ironically now, 2 of the oldest domestic car models still out there are Mustang and Corvette - loaded for bear with high-tech computer chipped V8 energy. Thanks to the EPA or DOT? Haha! No.
Were it not for the challenge of meeting strict emissions and safety standards, Detroit would have continued to build 1955 Buicks into eternity.
"Evolve or die" was the message from the Feds.
Fact is, the Japanese weren't smarter than Detroit--they just looked at reality and dealt with it.
Detroit could not have made money if the workers worked for half-pay, their cars were so inferior at that time. Not only that, Americans were willing to pay a very high price for a really good quality European car.
So I don't think the argument holds up at all that labor costs destroyed Detroit.
Detroit destroyed Detroit; otherwise, the imports from every part of the world could not have had the success they did.
Detroit "gave it away".
Another freakshow from the same malaisey era...never seen a Versailles conversion before.
As for the Versailles, its interesting that is for sure. Check out the underhood pic, the engine is like 2' from the grille.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
Haha! I knew you'd bite! Takes a real imagination to praise the DOT and EPA for the Corvette C5-R and C6.R and +400hp Mustangs...and a big glass of koolaid to wash it down!
By the way, in those dark and scary days before the DOT and EPA existed, what gov't agency forced Henry Ford out of his cave to complete the River Rouge plant in 1928? I didn't get the memo.
And that Caddy was from a limo/hearse maker, I'd guess, not directly from GM?
I think we'd still have 400+ hp Corvettes and Mustangs today, even if the gov't didn't step in. Only problem is, they'd probably have twice the displacement of today's cars, burn three times as much gas, and put out 50x more pollution! And they probably wouldn't have airbags, headrests, or shoulder belts, or much of a crumple zone.
Without advanced engine management systems and tens of millions of dollars in engine research to achieve a clean-burning, fuel-efficient and powerful engine, no way in hell a modern Mustang or Corvette would have been any different than the gas-hungry piles of dangerous iron they were building in 1965. Detroit would have had no incentive except styling changes.
Computers and lightweight materials make cars better, and neither would have happened without government intervention.
This is NOT TO SAY that this was the "goal" of the EPA---to make faster cars---but that was a most desirable side-effect.
Of course! My point was that color on the Caddy really resembles the "Metallic Pea" of the Truckster
On another forum I read, a poster has made an early 80s LTD wagon into a Truckster clone. I can only imagine the looks he gets driving it.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
IMO the Sportwagon is actually seen in the movie, in the gas station scene where he tears off the license plate, the blue AMC Eagle beside it.
I've actually seen a few Crown Vic wagons with the extra taillights on the tailgate (essentially putting a left taillight on the right side of the tailgate, and a right taillight on the left), a'la the Family Truckster. I wonder if that was actually an option on them, or if people just did that to them, in response to National Lampoon's Vacation?
There is actually a good bit of work in the conversion. The entire rear window is different and the grill assembly / dual quad headlight assemblies take some frabrication.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
Already Mazda with SkyActiv claims gas engines with new transmissions that have the same power but get c. 20% better gas mileage. From what I've read Mazda engineers started working on SkyActiv around 2008 as gas prices spiked. But in 2009 when the new CAFE went in they started to bet the company on it and put serious money into it. I think all the other car companies are doing similar things as a result of CAFE. They realize that even if gas prices drop some day they have to do it...