9th Jan 2013, 11:33

Best comment I ever read on here. Any savings with gas or hybrids charging meters in the cities will likely see large price hikes as more buy into the technology.

My first car was a VW Bug at 16. Gas cost 36 cents a gallon. My typical fill up was just over 3 bucks. At 1.50 wage an hour in 1970, I never had any problem even as a high school kid. Nowadays my kids make around 8-9 bucks an hour. I totally see your point with the young today. They can't afford to drive much, even with jobs. The parents today have to help. I have one older child as well. With high rents and to even qualify for a home loan is tough. Kids remain at home or have a # of room mates. Even with 2 incomes, people are not saving enough. Maybe 50 plus MPG will turn life around for them. I feel pretty pessimistic however.

9th Jan 2013, 12:05

Anyone arguing that we would be better off without the EPA needs to only take a few glances at any photo or movie made during the 50's-70's in any major US city: The air in those cities was filthy. Particulate matter causes cancer. It's also important to remember that the EPA got rid of leaded gas. The "going green crap" is for YOUR benefit.

I'd love for just one of those who make such claims to stand up and claim we would all be better off with more pollution and leaded gas.

9th Jan 2013, 16:28

Sadly, I must agree that virtually everything in the U.S. affects only the middle class. If any effort is made to lessen the gap between the middle class and the wealthy, the wealthy simply buy more politicians to make the playing field even more uneven. After all, we do have the best government money can buy.

9th Jan 2013, 20:22

"$10 a gallon by 2020-2025."

Sounds like the worst is yet to come.

10th Jan 2013, 09:29

Again, the EPA isn't interested in saving the earth. I've worked with them on several occasions, and they're very wasteful. In fact, the EPA is one of the most politically controlled organizations in the government's arsenal (meaning politics come before facts). Having a world of small economical vehicles would only affect the middle class; as you know, the rich would never touch a small, cheap, commuter car for anything else other than PR stunts.

To me, America's "addiction" to big vehicles is a good thing, it shows that unlike much of Europe, we're actually willing to hold out against the government's and corporation's war on us middle class people. Believe me, nobody up in the rich sections of society actually cares about the environment or saving people's lives in traffic accidents.

10th Jan 2013, 11:52

So do you walk, ride a bike, take mass transit to work? Or drive a minimal distance to work? I wouldn't want to breathe closely with a modern day tailpipe.

You can can call an abatement team if you have a typical mid 70s home with lead paint. And then there are those that buy lead additives for their big block engines in cars and boats.

I thought the year of this model review uses unleaded gas. Nice car; we should get one.

10th Jan 2013, 16:31

You should sell your 55 Mercury; it is very harmful to the environment.

10th Jan 2013, 20:18

I have to agree that the wealthy have not the slightest concern for the health or safety of anyone other than themselves. That fact is self-evident. And yes, driving monstrous and wasteful vehicles is their way of saying "Look at me, I'm rich!".

With that said, there is simply no question that man-made global warming is progressing at a torrid (pardon the pun) pace. Joining the wasteful rich in destroying our planet is not my idea of healthy class competition. The wealthy will always feed their ravenous egos with all sorts of extravagant and unhealthy things, just to show the "Little People" they are better. I'd prefer not to join them in destroying our Earth.

10th Jan 2013, 23:48

First of all, the 1978 Lincoln Continental used unleaded fuel; leaded fuel was slowly declining by the late-1960s, and was completely gone by 1972, years before the 1978 Continental was even thought of.

Second of all, people lived fine with leaded fuel for decades; hell those generations were healthier than ours today. EPA CAFE standards had nothing to do with leaded fuel and its demise, being that CAFE was signed into law in 1975, three years after the ban on leaded gas. Your lead gas argument is thus void.

Third of all, the going green stuff is aimed only at the middle class, not the rich, who would never stand for a cut back in their exuberant lifestyles. The earth's resources are limited, and the rich want to use more, so what do they do?, get the middle class to use less. I used to believe in all that going green stuff, until my bosses (who are all from the rich section of society) kept on laughing at me and eventually re-educated me on the sad truth of matters. It's all a hoax for the rich to benefit, and the government to be able to control what you drive.

Do yourself a favor, don't fall for all that environmentalist stuff. The more moderate stuff is alright, but a lot of them are radicals who are actually loaded with cash and have no love for the working class. The only way to truly save the planet would be to commit an unspeakable atrocity not fit for description on this site. And it's not something I would want any generation to go through.

11th Jan 2013, 03:59

So are you going to sell your car? No need for emission testing on hydrocarbons polluting the atmosphere. Walking is healthier too.

11th Jan 2013, 11:44

If you really want to get to the heart of the environmentalist issue, a lot of the folks who preach the most about global warming (Al Gore, etc.) are just elitists themselves. Gore drove around in big European luxury saloons and SUVs on his way to his speaking functions, and his home used more power than a small city. It's all just business, with us being the suckers they're marketing to.

Guys like him want us working class people to drive around in nothing else but ugly, small, and cheap 4-cylinder econoboxes, to make room for them to roll around in big luxury vehicles, private jets, and live in enormous, inefficient houses. All about class war, nothing else.

You have to understand that, their solutions are basically to drive the middle class to poverty levels. If that happens, democracy will eventually go as well, ultimately paving the way for a modern version of Stalin's Russia or Mao's China, probably with all the same democidal tendencies as well.

11th Jan 2013, 12:19

Some people really need to do some research about the EPA before making statements. A lot of people - and particularly some who might lean a certain way politically - have this somewhat skewed view of what the EPA does and how it benefits all of us.

For starters, the EPA was started under the Nixon administration, whom as we all know was a Republican. At the time, this act was actually highly supported on both sides of the aisle. People tend to forget that prior to the EPA, some of the rivers in US industrial cities were extremely polluted, and that in one instance the Cuyahoga river in Ohio actually caught fire.

Lead in gasoline began a phaseout in 1975. Leaded gasoline was a SIGNIFICANT cause of lead exposure in the US up until that time period, and of the population that is at most risk of lead exposure, children fare the worst. There is absolutely ZERO debate when it comes to whether or not phasing out lead in gas was good or bad. So we can stop that conversation immediately. If anyone thinks we would be perfectly fine with leaded gas fumes, then sorry, you're on your own. Then of course came catalytic converters, which as seen by any number of comparative reports is one of the most significant reasons the air quality in the US has drastically improved. If anyone wants to claim we would be better off breathing dirty air, let us know.

But the problem with this sort of debate, is that 99% of the people who view the EPA negatively, is that they aren't really fully aware of what the EPA does in full. It's not just about cars, gas, and fuel economy. The EPA has in some ways become a political football. There is a reason for this, and much of it has to do with outside interests, whose job it is to try and influence the public's opinion for the benefit of themselves. But that's another ball of wax altogether. The EPA does a lot more then that.

For example, if you don't know what a superfund site is, I suggest you look that up. But in essence, it's a site or area that is contaminated with materials that are deemed hazardous. This includes former manufacturing plants where everything from paint, asbestos, PCBs, various chemicals, and so on were made. It's the EPA that not only identifies these areas, but helps clean them up. It was common practice for decades for companies to simply dump their waste into the river. Look up instances of PCBs: electronics manufactures dumped many metric tons of the stuff directly into major rivers for decades.

Again - anyone who wants to claim that this was a good thing, and that we don't need no stinkin' EPA or regulations, be my guest. The EPA is also serves to protect the public against radiation contamination.

In addition to this, the EPA also mandates air quality as well as water quality. Many, many countries around the world - even first world developed ones - have unsafe drinking water. We on the other hand take for granted that in just about any city, one can simply twist a knob and out comes clean drinking water. If you enjoy having that luxury, as well as having cleaner air to breathe, then you can in part thank the EPA for helping to ensure that these two vital items are cleaner and safer for you.