You know Challenger made the list as one of the meanest....
This guy knows where it's at and can articulate that.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...01/1149/AUTO01
[quote]Rex Roy: Car culture
Irrational greenies, hands off my V-8
If I happen to hold an opinion that is politically correct, it's coincidence. For instance, I believe in personal responsibility, hate socialism, love God and recognize the general goodness of our country. My reluctance to embrace another PC view surfaced as I reviewed a new best/worst list of vehicles by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). The selection criteria of this Washington, D.C., advisory group focuses on vehicular environmental impact as seen through the lens of global warming. That's another topic on which I'm definitely not PC.
Before the hate mail starts, let's get a couple of things straight: I'm in favor of health-related automotive emissions regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency spearheaded decades ago. Thanks to these mandates, today's cars are 95-99 percent cleaner-running than the average vehicle from 1967. Smog is bad. Clean air is good.
I also like driving an efficient car. My current daily driver is a small, fuel-sipping two-seater. The fact that I'm consuming less matters not a whit as experts on oil reserves know that the world isn't running out of oil within the next century. For me it's about conserving economic green.
No practical beliefs
But practical considerations aren't driving the ACEEE's list. It's driven by the belief that carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. automobiles are causing global warming. That belief is so wrong it's just painful to think about.
Advertisement
A 2007 report from the United Nations concluded that livestock produce far more C02 emissions than the world's entire transportation industry. So if man-made C02 (including that from farming/ranching) causes global warming, wouldn't becoming vegetarians save the planet faster than driving smaller cars? A new paper from researchers at The University of Chicago thinks so.
ACEEE director Therese Langer explained that the "Greenest" and "Meanest" Vehicles for the Environment for 2008 were developed to help consumers make good choices when it comes to purchasing a vehicle that is less damaging to the environment.
The ACEEE's picks can be found at
www.GreenerCars.org. Not surprisingly, their "Greenest" cars are tiny vehicles with even tinier engines. Hybrids make the cut, too. Their "Meanest" list includes full-size trucks and SUVs, but is dominated by high-performance low-volume models such as the 250-mph Bugatti Veyron and Bentley Azure -- cars that emit fewer harmful emissions in 5,500 miles of driving than painting a room in your home with a gallon of water-based latex paint.
What truly worries me about this cabal is that organizations like ACEEE help drive environmental policy. Support for such policies often gain strength by identifying and demonizing a convenient enemy. In this case, vehicles that use more fuel are dangerous to the Earth.
Say goodbye to V-8 engines
The PC/global warming tsunami is already restricting future automotive product development. General Motors Corp. recently killed a new V-8 engine program, citing imminent C02 emissions regulations. Other examples are legion.
Never before have cars offered so much performance, quality and practicality. In addition to today's stellar performers such as the Corvette Z06 and Ford Mustang GT500, the Dodge Challenger SRT8 (coming this spring) and Chevrolet Camaro (2009) are just around the corner.
But if the PC trend mirrored in the ACEEE's green and mean list continues, this golden age of horsepower will pass quickly.
In other words, if you want a vehicle with eight (or more) thumping cylinders, get one soon. In another 10 years, the greenies will have helped regulate t