Who would have thought in 1971 that in 2017 you could buy brand-new 450-500+hp Challengers, Camaros and Mustangs that got good gas mileage on pump gas? I wouldn't be so gloomy just yet. A LOT can happen between now and 2020, 2030, 2040.

Sure - like elections!

California looks to be going first.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/tra...175740811.html

250 plus million vehicles plugged into the electric grid every night, that should be interesting.

In April of 2011, multiple Tornadoes hit Alabama and most of North Alabama was without power for over a week. Imagine that in a world full of cars/trucks that need to be plugged in every night. I doubt the internal combustion engine will disappear any time soon. I do think our hobby will continue to change but it will be slow.


Tommy

In all of these bans the one car that isn't banned is the hybrid. Just cars that use the ICE for 100% power all the time.

And it will take decades for people to replace their current cars with electric/hybrid/fuel cell after the ban is put into place. So who today will be alive 50 to 60 years from now?

our kids and grandkids.

Framed another way: If I remain in good health I expect to keep the bulk of my collection for at least 30 more years.

A ban could cut either way as to the value at sale. Stuff that you cannot legally drive typically is hit hard on valuation at sale.

Not an outcome I want to see, nor an outcome anyone else wants - especially if handing a car down within an estate... just saying.:)

The bans only deal with new cars sold. No one is stupid enough to outlaw ALL existing ICE cars. That just won't happen. You think Big Oil would let that happen? Plus the USA is a lot different in sheer size from France or England. The only USA wide transportation system we have are the Interstates.

It makes good press to say you will ban all new ICE cars sold . . . then you have to deal with the BILLIONS needed to create an infrastructure that can deal with electric/fuel cell cars. So how is the financial health of CA?

So let them deal with the issue, just like we have had to deal with the issue of nuclear weapons after we dropped the A-Bombs on Japan to end WWII.

Gee thanks. I didn't ask for this.

(I'm 18.)

Neither did we! Decisions are made today that solve one problem but have far reaching consequences into the future.

Exactly.

While we can make comparisons that distract from the discussion however a simple review of the thread will reflect that the material posted warning of what some segments of society have planned for the incremental phase out of the internal combustion engine is very real.

As an example the catoylitic converter is front and center here as in 1970 the big three were laughing at the prospect. By 1972 the automotive press was openly calling the new car offerings "Lemons" and the converter was the law soon after. What caused this was regulation backed by the junk science of period this was the so called "hole in the Ozone".

The domestic Auto industry was damaged severely during this period some will say it has still not recovered.

We would be well advised to heed the warnings provided by history.

That's all well and good but the issue at hand is that it far easier to say you are going to phase out the ICE versus actually doing it. Not one of the countries that has talked up the ban has said how they will deal with the massive investment to their infrastructure to support the ban.

Let's take a look at California for a moment. What happens when CA gets hit with another large earthquake which will surely disrupt the electric grids. What happens when people lose their power for a week or two?

Ask Puerto Rico.

I can't. They don't have either land line or cell phone service for the most part.

Yep, I had to blink twice...no this is not the onion: :)

Paris has banned all cars for a day.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...y-day-50208953

Study recommends European countries exempt historic vehicles from car bans

https://www.hemmings.com/blog/?p=912736

Stay alert folks. :)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-in-the-works

There are less and less ways to apply lipstick to this pig.

Reasons to leave the "burning" state keep coming up, besides high cost of living. :no:

At my age I won't care by the time they implement that.

Well with no illness my family on both sides is living into the early 90's with today's medical care.

With advanced medical care yet to be developed who knows....so it is conceivable I could be looking at perhaps 40 more years of tinkering with old cars - so yes I do care about my cars and the future of our Fossil fueled automobiles in general.:)

Well here we go- Europe has banned the sale of the GM 6.2 engine in Camaro and Corvette.

Unless this is fake news - this is exactly our worst fear:

https://driving.ca/chevrolet/auto-ne...amaro-ss-sales

https://carbuzz.com/news/new-chevy-c...nned-in-europe

Sounds like an opportunity to do a reverse Yenko deal. Smaller engine instead of larger.

Yup -- the real reason is the Chevy's are spoiling the rule of the European cars ... just sayin' ... BMW, Mercs etc. are applauding this ...

6.2 today in a new car.. 426 HEMI in a collector car tomorrow...

"Just Sayin"

Unless I have grossly misunderstood this, there is no bulls eye on the 6.2. The 6.2 simply does not burn clean enough in its present iteration to pass next year's emissions standards.

That doesn't mean that Chevy can't produce a cleaner version.

I will be the first to admit that in the early 70's I hated the EPA and blamed that agency for all the crappy cars we ended up driving. However, I will also be the first to admit that I was wrong. There is no way car makers would EVER have pursued and achieved the amazing (relatively) clean burning engines we have today. With the advances in technology, they even figured out how to build them with huge power numbers AND still make them clean burning.

I have no doubt that Chevy (and every other manufacturer) can make them even cleaner.

While I agree, we (collectors of old vehicles) need to stay vigilant to insure no governing agency in the U.S. passes laws that make our vehicles illegal, I have not seen any such proposed legislation that would do that. If they want to ban manufacture of of everything but electric cars in another 20 years, that doesn't mean every non-electric car on the road is suddenly gone. Just like cats in 1973. Didn't have any affect on the pre cat cars that were already on the road.

Lynn,

As I pointed out in post #38 of this thread the issue in play is the global implementation of UN agenda 2030, and I want to reiterate that I want to keep politics out of this thread.

However for those of you that need to better understand the UN Agenda 2030 mindset simply have a look at this recent France 24 show and pay specific attention to the guest's stated position during the 3.50-5.30 mark.

https://www.watch-latest-news.com/ca...ion-standards/

On the specifics with the 6.2 on the way out, the C-8 will be mid engine smaller and will likely be simply be re certified for Europe in the near term.

Now please understand that our own version of Europe and Agenda 2030 is proposed right here in the US:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...ution/109/text

Pay special attention to the language at Subpart H.

Our cars have been coded as "ICE vehicles" for the purpose of compliance targets with agenda 2030.

Carlton Reed has an excellent Piece in FORBES illustrating where NYC wants to go in its war on the car.

Yes Forbes not the onion or the babylon bee.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlton.../#2bdcd8bef4ed

I love how the backdrop on the caption photo is "Making Progress Happen"

The latest from the UK NO more ICE vehicles in only 15 years.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/32084/...ngines-to-2035

So you mean the "slippery slope" is a real thing? Who'd a thunk it.

What?

Well it is a bit more complex than "water is wet"

If you say "we are going to ban your antique or classic cars" Ban your tow vehicle, ban your race car, ban parts for your engine, and so on - then that has an immediate polarizing effect and removes any room you have to shape opinion or perceptions because you are immediately messing with private property use and ownership.

So the tactic of late is to nudge and cloak the real objective while wrapping the entire issue in layers of media and social distraction while you employ generational shift as a tactic. This is the "we have the save the environment movement" which targets our kids and ironically only attacks the rights of free countries while developing countries and the authoritarian mega polluters (china) are selectively 100% ignored. The absence of any concentrated focus on the real modern day source of pollution will indicate to open minded people what the real intent behind this "movement" really is, and by the way this is not at all new - the very same fear mongering was employed 45 years ago about the dangers of Tetraethyl lead (TEL) and we all know how that worked out for the domestic auto industry in the 1970's.

This thread originally started as educational commentary on potential rule making by the EPA with the potential to negatively impact our hobby. I have chosen to continue to update it to report on the progress being made world wide in what at this point is undeniably a blatant effort to restrict the future ability for anyone to enjoy, restore and keep any internal combustion automobile.

It is clear now what the end game is so I will operate within the rules set by the forum and simply continue to update this information as changes are announced.

Take a Kid to a car show, a race, take them for a ride in your muscle car, Your hobby and our automotive heritage depends on it.

I have still not seen ONE proposal by any Country, State, Province or municipality that makes OWNING an internal combustion engine (ICE) car illegal, OR occasionally driving an ICE car illegal, even after 2035 or 2040 (or 2050 for that matter…. in which case, like Charley says, I don’t know that it matters to me). The only ban involving a collector car was driving downtown Paris, not something I am planning to do any time soon.

However, soon after its initial implementation, banning cars manufactured prior to 1997, an exception was made (June 2016) for classic cars. What they are targeting are cars that are old (but not REALLY old like our collector cars) and dirty and driven daily.

Norway has maybe the most progressive policy towards all electric vehicles. Even in Norway, the collector cars will be exempt.

You can’t just read the headline that says: “All ICE Cars Banned by 2025 (or 2030, 2035 or 2040) and ignore the actual article, which obviously contains much more detail than the headline.

All of the proposals purport to bans the sale of a NEW car with ICE. While many also aim to speed up the switch to all electric vehicles by various means; however, not one actual proposal suggests taking all the Duesenbergs or muscle cars away. They are not banning cars already on the road. Do you seriously believe a consumer could purchase an ICE car in 2029, and then be forced to send it to the crusher in 2030? He or she will just not be able to buy another ICE in 2030.

Is the internal combustion engine on the way out? Absolutely; although, IF (a big “if” I know) someone develops an engine control system that is virtually emission free, there would be no more argument against the ICE. Necessity is the mother of invention. If you had told me in 1974 that cars in 2020 burn as clean as they do now AND that those cars would incredibly more efficient and powerful, I would have laughed. Of course, I was wrong.

Post #68 implies that the State of NY wants to go to war against the car. Clearly they are trying to figure out ways to reduce the number of cars on the road on a daily basis. Again, I have seen nothing to indicate the State wants to go after collector cars. The implication is that the Gov is considering compulsory helmet laws for auto drivers. First, if it is applied across the board (and no reason to believe it won’t be) then it would ALSO apply to EVs. Second, it isn’t like there is an actual movement for compulsory helmet laws for automobiles. The ENTIRE part of the story that suggest so is as follows:

Streetsblog NYC’s Gersh Kuntzman then asked Cuomo if he might consider helmet compulsion for car drivers, given that vast numbers of car drivers involved in fatal crashes die as a result of head trauma.
After a long pause, the governor said: “I’m thinking.”
He then followed up with: “I don’t know enough. I’d like to see the data.”

That’s it.

While the ICE cars in their current iterations clearly have a bulls eye on them; muscle cars do not.

This thread started with an article about the EPA wanting to ban any race car that started life as a street car. That proposal was made in Feb. 2016. While someone may have posted the UPDATE on this thread, I did not see it. Five and one half months later, the proposal was withdrawn, as cooler heads prevailed.

“Update 7/28/16: While the EPA has withdrawn the proposal, the agency continues to assert authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate the modification of vehicles used for competition. As a result, the Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports (RPM) Act was created, a bipartisan bill in Congress that will guarantee that street vehicles can continue to be modified into race cars used exclusively for the track.”

Maybe the sky will start falling in on our hobby at some point. For now, it is not. This is just my opinion. You are free to read the same stories and draw different conclusions. I don’t have a crystal ball.

Ok Lynn,

I get what you are saying.

Tell you what lets just take what is being proposed literally world wide at face value and then hindsight will be 20-20 within this thread.

You obviously have an opinion that you have voiced here very clearly within this thread previously, so debating you on the merits will get us exactly no place fast and since I do not want this thread to go the way of the collector car fraud thread, lets keep it nice shall we?:beers:

I agree. You know, I remember watching an interview of Ruth Graham (wife of Billy Graham) back in the 70's.
The interviewer was obviously trying to stir some controversy (which I do NOT believe either of us are trying to do) and asked her if she agreed with everything her husband said.

Her response was perfect: "I learned a long time ago, if two people agree on everything, one of them isn't necessary."

I can appreciate different points of view. No need to be anything other than nice.

This was an OP-Ed across the pond just two years ago:

"As the Judges force the Government to ban the sale of even new petrol cars, classic car auction price falls of unknown depths are very likely in the short term."

"As local authorities ban old cars from even urban areas, fossil fuels are in very real danger of disappearing from what will be a dwindling number of forecourts."

"If the politicians prevent you from driving your classic car where you want to go and you are unable to refuel it when you get there, unless you have a motor museum, then there would appear to be little point in ownership."

Here: https://drivetribe.com/p/the-2040-pe...RNevyo7JUlWBww

The EPA is back at it again:

EPA Declares War Against Makers of Emissions Defeat Devices

This spells trouble for the aftermarket industry and tuning community alike.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/31848/...defeat-devices

And the Diesel Bros got the winning ticket.... Joel Rosen has the original T-Shirt from way back in 1975.


https://www.thedrive.com/news/32533/...ruck-emissions

Sorry I cannot resist.