Karl on Cars

If you've studied automotive history...well, congratulations! You're among a depressingly elite group of people in today's world. Regardless, if you know your history you know that big changes in the automotive marketplace tend to come in cycles. Two of the most dramatic occurred in the 1960s and the 1970s. In the '60s performance ratcheted up as domestic automakers got into a horsepower war; a war that resulted in the most powerful production vehicles of the era. Then, in the early 1970s, a combination of factors aligned to not only end the horsepower war but punish the combatants (both at the manufacturer and customer level). Between political, environmental and safety concerns it was suddenly much cooler (or at least more socially conscious) to drive a Vega than a 'Vette. In case you haven't already noticed, we're on the brink of a similar shift.

Exhibit A comes from a Wall Street Journal story that has Bob Lutz verbally sparring with politicians and environmentalists ("Which is which?" you may be asking yourself...). Congress wants GM, and every other automaker, to improve fuel efficiency by 4% a year over the next 10 years, while Lutz insists that horsepower sells far more effectively than gas mileage (social consciousness be damned). Who's right? It doesn't really matter because, ultimately, politicians are more powerful than captains of industry (even the really charismatic ones). Lutz admitted in this article that GM has put the rear-drive Impala on hold because it can't predict which way the political and regulatory winds are going to blow over the next five years.

Exhibit B comes in the form of growing acceptence that human activity is affecting the climate. The facts surrounding this issue are rapidly becoming a moot point. Like most campaigns in human history, it's not the fact or fiction that matters, it's the amount of support that can be drummed up -- often through simple repetition. If Ralph Nader and the safety advocates could convince congress, and the American public, that putting a 55 mph speed limit in place would save both lives and gas, then surely Al Gore and the environmentalists can convince those same groups that we're destroying the planet.

Exhibit C comes in the form of mandated stability control on all cars by the year 2012. It's likely this move will save lives, though exactly how many is up for debate. I remember once upon a time when the widespread use of ABS was seen as the great savior of drivers and passengers across the fruited plains, but it didn't quite work out that way. However, the fact that automotive-related fatalities have remained essentially flat (roughly 40,000 a year) for the past decade is starting to grate on the safety zealots (nevermind that millions of additional cars and drivers are on the road every year while the average driving speed keeps increasing...). They want this number to drop, and you can expect them to keep pushing for laws they think will make that happen. In the 1970s it was gigantic rubber bumpers (done to save vehicle damage as much or more than lives). In the 1980s it was seatbelts. In the 1990s it was airbags. In recent years, in Europe, it's been front end designs that don't hurt pedestrians. And of course they hate SUVs and will happily support any move to cut horsepower and vehicle speeds.

Put it all together and you have a convergence of political, environmental and safety concerns that is poised to drastically alters the cars we buy and drive. Sound familiar? One missing elment this time around (so far) is the insurance industry's targeted attack on any vehicle that dares to offer performance. I think the number and breadth of special interest insurance companies in 2007 make it unlikely we'll see that tactic again.

Ultimately the performance of the 1960s returned to U.S. showrooms by the mid-1980s, but it was a painful 10-plus-year drought for enthusiasts. And when those cars did come back they were indeed safer and more fuel efficient than their forebearers. Vehicle performance has only gotten stronger over the past 20 years, but I don't remember ever seeing this much anti-performance-car energy brewing. I was born too late to witness the death of the muscle car, so my information comes from reading books and talking to those that did see it happen. With plenty of cars packing over 500 horsepower and the ability to crest 200-plus mph it could be argued that performance has had its due.

What say you? Do you see a shift coming? And is it time for a change in priorities, or should we keep pushing for the $30,000 family sedan with 500 horsepower and a 200 mph top speed?