

Why Not?

Why Not?

from Hemmings Muscle Machines

June, 2012 - Ray Bohacz

By nature, I am one who ponders many aspects of life and automobiles; I take objects at face value, but eventually ask myself why things are the way they are. For me, this has become a wonderful learning tool, because it forces me to go beyond my comfort level of knowledge or understanding. For others, my seemingly endless quest to understand "why" has led them to shun, and in some instances, physically run away from my stream of questions. The constant queries often make such people realize they may not be as expert on the subject as they want us to believe. Please do not let this preamble draw a mental image of a pompous Ray--the truth is quite the contrary. I just need to understand things (especially those of a mechanical nature) to a very deep level. It is more an acknowledgment of my shortcomings than my pride.

As an aside to this, I've learned that when you dig deeper, you come to see that most things proclaimed to be new really are not. If you go back far enough, everything was new at one time. The label "improved" is probably more accurate in a mature society than "new."

To illustrate: My friend Tony Cocurullo recently gifted me with a November 1958 issue of the long-defunct Mechanix Illustrated magazine, the literary home of a now almost-forgotten hero of mine, Tom McCahill (that is a story for another day). As I gently turned the pages, I once again confirmed what I had known for years: There is not much new today, and often the old stuff was much more ingenious than what we are bombarded with in the present.

Solar power is a hot topic now, with the energy situation being what it is. There is even a solar-powered emergency radio on the market in case the electric goes out. Great new technology, right? Well in that '58 issue of MI, there was a new product release for a solar-powered transistor radio that had a small and unobtrusive photovotaic cell, which charged a 4-volt mercury battery. It was to be offered in better department stores for 1959.

The collector-car market would be well served if they could still buy the 6/12-volt battery that was advertised in that issue, too. It proudly proclaimed that the engine automatically cranked on 12 volts, but ran on 6 volts from the same battery with no driver involvement. To accomplish that today, we would need a cadre of microchips, advanced algorithms and a thousand-dollar Windows-based control unit, along with a band of lawyers. The same holds true for women's fashion. In the magazine, a politically incorrect for 2012 and scantily clad model, Mimi, showed off a tool kit while wearing a pair of clear Lucite high-heel sandals. Just like the ones my wife bought last spring. But when Charlotte showed me her find, she proclaimed that it was a hot new style. I will keep this information from her to maintain marital bliss.

Back to the subject of asking "why." I do it with other things, too. Recently, a neighbor down the road purchased from me an old disc harrow and two-bottom plow that I wasn't using. He has a small farm and also raises meat rabbits. In friendship, he offered me some rabbit meat, which I respectfully declined. I told him I'd never tasted rabbit and he was quick to proclaim, "It tastes like chicken." I do not know if that is true but if it is, why not just eat chicken?

This mindset has led me to ask, why do the car companies work so hard to reinvent storied and respected nameplates such as Camaro, Mustang, Challenger, Charger and now Dart, and brag about vintage styling cues, even though you often need to look hard to find them? My question to Detroit Inc. is: Why not just take a 1967 Camaro (or anything else), fit it with modern safety equipment and build that, instead of trying to convince the public that the new version has the "look" of the old car? In every instance, I believe the original was much better looking, more pure in its size and vastly more functional than the modern-day counterpart. I know the excuse: that it would be impossible to package all of the electronics and safety equipment in a car the size of the old pony entries. But then, how does a Fiat 500 or a smart fortwo exist? Another apology is that the modern engine will not fit, but that is pure boloney. You would not have to go to many cruise nights to find an original pony car with the latest of the corporations' EFI engines transplanted under the hood, along with the new-style transmission. Aerodynamics is the stumbling block, they then shout. Oh, so an older Mustang is less aerodynamic than the current Escape or last year's Explorer? I don't think so.

Just imagine the rush of customers running to the showroom with checkbook in hand if Detroit turned out a true-to-form 1964 Mustang, 1967 Camaro or 1970 Challenger. They can update the interior to integrate the airbags and side impact requirements, but the body would be a carbon copy of the real McCoy. If Dynacorn and others can make a complete new body for these cars, why can't the original manufacturer do the same? The sad part is there are probably hundreds of enthusiasts who have integrated modern drivelines and even ABS brakes into older muscle cars with exemplary results. It would seem to be an easy task for a carmaker, with the almost unlimited engineering prowess they have. It is hard to believe that a kid working in a barn can outdo a degreed engineering team.

By the time you read this, my Ford Escort will probably be just hitting the 400,000-mile mark. The reality is that I will need to replace it soon. I would love for that replacement to be a quintessential American pony car--not the bloated, too big and overweight versions that are on the market today.


Order Backissues of Hemmings Muscle Machines       |       Subscribe to Hemmings Muscle Machines

Reader Comments

Hemmings Muscle Machines

Order Backissues of Hemmings Muscle Machines