Their Zippers Bust, Their Buckles Break . . .

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

You’ve heard the story about teaching a pig to sing? It wastes your time and annoys the pig. So said Mark Twain, at any rate.

But how do you deal with cars that are pigs?

Which is all new cars.

Even hybrid cars.

The 2018 Kia Niro plug-in hybrid I just finished reviewing (here) averaged just over 42 MPG  . . . right there with a 1984 Chrysler K-car. Which didn’t need an electric motor and batteries to achieve 40-plus MPG.

The K-car also cost about half what the Niro costs, in inflation-adjusted dollars – but that’s another rant.

The 2019 Subaru Ascent I test drove the week prior (here) averaged a truly dismal 22.4 MPG – despite being powered by the very latest in fuel-saving high-tech: a 2.4 liter direct-injected/turbocharged four cylinder engine, the works bolted to a fuel-saving continuously variable (CVT) automatic and geared for maximum MPGs.

All that . . . and 22.4 MPG.

My ancient (1976) Pontiac Trans-Am, a muscle car with an engine more than three times as large (7.5 liter V8) as the Soobie’s and which doesn’t have a computer, direct injection or a turbocharger but does have a big four barrel carburetor and burnout-enhancing 3:90 gears is only slightly less thirsty.

It is capable of averaging in the high teens.

The question arises – in view of all the “efficient” and  “fuel saving” technologies new cars boast: Why are they so fuel-inefficient?

It is because they are grotesque fatties.

Four-wheeled emulators of Gabourey Sidibe (from Precious).

The average 2018 model car is on the order of 500-800 pounds heavier than its 1990 equivalent.

Here are some for-instances:

1990 Ford Escort, curb weight 2,242 lbs. vs. 2018 Ford Focus (the current Escort equivalent) which weighs 2,974 lbs. – a gain of 732 lbs.

1990 Toyota Camry, curb weight 2,811 lbs. vs. 2018 Camry, 3,340 lbs – a gain of 529 lbs.

1990 Dodge Caravan, curb weight 2,910 lbs. vs. 2018 Caravan, 4,510 lbs. – a gain of 1,600 lbs!

The 2018 Kia Niro hybrid I test drove – ostensibly an “economy” car and a “compact” by modern car standards – weighs almost 3,400 pounds. Which is just a couple of hundred pounds less than my 1976 Trans-Am – which has a heavy steel frame and a massively heavy cast-iron V8 engine.

And the Subaru Ascent weighs several hundred pounds more than my 42-year-old muscle car, despite the Pontiac’s huge cast-iron V8, cast iron rear axle and a bolt-on steel subframe just like a truck’s.

So why is the Trans-Am so relatively svelte?

It is because the Trans-Am’s designers didn’t have to cope with the numerous weight-adding saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety fatwas which have made new cars  so obese.

Which is why they are such piggies – all the “efficient” technology notwithstanding.

Of course, it could be worse.

Without the “efficient” technology – which is also elaborate and expensive technology – modern cars like the ’19 Ascent would use even more gas than they already do. They would probably get worse mileage than my old muscle car.

Which by the way is itself several hundred pounds heavier than the 1970 Trans-Am, which is basically the same car except for the front and rear clips. The ’76’s clips had to be revised to accommodate federally fatwa’d “5 MPH bumpers” – the first of what became a juggernaut of saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety fatwas, which porked out new cars to their current Precious proportions.

The 5 MPH bumpers added an astonishing 500 pounds to the curb weight of my Trans-Am, which swelled from just over 3,200 lbs. in 1970 (200 pounds less than the current Niro hybrid) to just over 3,700 pounds six years later.

Even so, the TA is still a relative flyweight. Its modern equivalent – the current Dodge Challenger weighs 500  lbs. more and is 1,100 pounds heavier than a 1970 Challenger.

Zippers bust, buckles break . . cue the Weird Al video parody of Michael Jackson’s hit, Bad..

The designers of my TA didn’t have to worry about roof crush, side-impact or or offset barrier crash testing.

It has zero air bags.

This was true well into the ’80s – when cars actually began to get better gas mileage as engines became more efficient at the same time that cars got lighter.

Some of you may remember another for-instance: the 1983-1991 Honda CRX. It was an economical economy car. The 1985 model achieved an EPA-rated 40 MPG in city driving – better than 90 percent of all new cars can manage on the highway – and 48 MPG on the highway, which is better mileage than 95 percent of all new cars can manage on the highway. 

The CRX did not have direct injection or a turbo or anything particularly fancy. But it weighed just 1,819 lbs. A current (2018) Fiat 500 – which is a smaller car, in terms of its length and wheelbase, at least – is a much heavier car: It weighs almost 2,400 lbs. – atrociously heavy for a car its size.

Which is why the Fiat doesn’t come close to achieving the mileage posted by the now officially antique CRX.

The Fiat touts a downright pathetic-in-comparison 28 city, 33 highway. Because it’s a four-wheeled Precious.

All new cars are.

Even with advantages of “fuel-saving “technologies such as direct injection, cylinder deactivation, auto-stop/start and transmissions with multiple overdrive gears to reduce engine operating speed in relation to road speed, today’s cars suck – because they are fat.

And they are fat because of Uncle.

Because of the federal saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety fatwas – issued by the same feds who issue the fuel efficiency fatwas.

Who have no moral grounds for issuing either type of fatwa.

If they lacked the power to issue (and enforce) such fatwas, we’d have lighter and more economical cars that would almost certainly be quicker and cheaper, too.

It might be worth looking into.

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here, please consider supporting EPautos.

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos magnets are free to those who send in $20 or more. My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If you find it useful, consider contributing a couple of bucks!  



Share Button


  1. While it is ridiculous that these “transportation appliances” weigh so much for what they are, it’s not the weight per se that’s the problem.

    Doubt this?

    Put 500 lbs. in the car- e.g. a few friends, or just pick up a canklesaurus wrecks at the dollar store and take a ride (in the car)…the mileage decrease will be hardly noticeable.

    What’s killing the MPGs is the puny engines having to struggle at the top of their power curve to haul these things around- and probably a good deal of inefficiency from the trannies too. If these overweight cars had bigger engines that didn’t have to work so hard, and appropriate gearing for such, they’d much better MPGs.

    To my knowledge, nobody has tried such an experiment- but it would be interesting if someone did, because it would shed yet more light on the duplicity of the EPA fartwars which have led to the demise of real engines, simple cars, and the proliferation of these crappy put-puts.

    • Hey Nunzio,

      The extra weight should have little effect at a constant velocity on relatively flat roads. However, it should produce a noticeable difference if driving on hilly/curvy roads or city driving (i.e., continuously changing velocity). I would be surprised if your experiment did not bear this out.

      Kind Regards,

      • Hi Jeremy!

        Good point. We know that, intimately, as cyclists. My experience has been though, that a mere 15-25% weight increase doesn’t affect motor vehicles all that much.

        I mean, you can, for instance [and I’ve witnessed this personally] take a Jeep Cherokee that weighs c. 4000 lbs, and an Excursion, which weighs almost DOUBLE that, with an engine that is c. 70% bigger than the Cherokee’s, and the difference in MPGs between the two vehicles is within 2 MPGs! (And actually, the Excursion would actually get better mileage than the Jeep if geared similarly- but unfortunately, mine is geared ridiculously low- 4.30’s).

        And I could cite many other such experiences, too.

        That is why I laugh when Ford comes out with fragile, ridiculously expensive-to-repair aluminum truck bodies…to save 2-300 lbs. Maybe that would mean a 0.10 MPG improvement in city driving.

        I believe that is just a case of the EPA pushing the NWO agenda, and the car companies happily going along with it, because it allows them to make less durable cars, while ensuring that there willc be competitors who make anything better- and guaranteeing that more people will be buying new vehicles more often.

        But point taken! When Eric picks up Canklesaurus wrecks, he’ll have to conduct TWO tests- a highway; and a city driving test.

        • “to save 2-300 lbs” I have an aluminum horse trailer. It will never rust. I can’t tell you how many rusted away steel trailers there are out there that haven’t lasted 5 years. The only reason trucks don’t last forever, is rust.

          • Johnny, aluminum’s fine for horse trailers and many other things- but when you start getting into sculpted shapes with mirror finishes that have to be perfect- and the aluminum is thin, no less, try seeing what happens when ya throw a tool box into the soft bed of that $70K F250, or get some body damage….or go to insure it.

            And while aluminum doesn’t “rust”, is sure can oxidize- especially when in contact with other metals.

            F350’s shouldn’t be as delicate as Teslas.

            • If you ever owned a horse or cattle, you would know they can do a hell of alot more damage than “dropping a tool box”. The aluminum my trailer is made of holds up fine. Put a piece of plywood in the bed if you want to throw toolboxes around. I would prefer aluminum. I believe the whole point of the free market is you can buy steel and I can buy aluminum, whatever we individually fancy. But when Uncle forces Everyone to use thin ass crappy aluminum, that is when the problems come in.

              • Johnny, I’ve owned plenty of cattle. Like I said…aluminum is fine for livestock trailers….because the aluminum they use for trailers and such is not soda-can thin, and not sculpted. It’s relatively thick aluminum, and not mere sheet aluminum, but tubular/angle/etc.

                It’s good for some things, not others. When I used to haul junk cars, I wouldn’t have a rollback with an aluminum bed- steel only. Drag something up on an AL. bed, and it gets gouged. Winch something into the rail, and it dents or cracks or separates- and then you have to get it welded- and good AL welders are not that common, and charge a lot.

                Other junkers who used AL beds, there trucks always looked like hell and were falling apart.

                AL beds for just towing broken down cars to the mechanic are fine.

                You’re comparing apples to oranges. Call your insurance co. and pretend you want a quote on insuring a Tesla with an AL body…see how much more THAT will cost you, because AL bodies are ridiculously expensive to repair, and get damaged easier/to a more severe degree than steel.

                Hey, no need to argue- if you have no problem with AL used for car and truck bodies…go buy a vehicle made of it. I wont. (But I’d buy an AL cattle trailer).

            • Nunz, you do know that chevy commercial was entirely rigged right?

              Just watch the tool box they used. It’s full of something heavy for the Ford and empty for the Chevy.

              I’ve seen properly designed aluminum take a considerable beating.

              • Brent, I gave up watching TV 25 years ago….don’t know of any commercial. I only know of Seinfeld and The Simpsons, ’cause I have DVDs…..

                Remember, we’re not talking Grumman aluminum step vans here…we’re talking vwehicles that aren’t made all that well today even when they’re made of steel…

                • GM did a commercial dropping a tool box into pickup beds and more. It’s been dissected in various automotive corners of the interwebs.

  2. Yes, it’s amazingly comical (in a perverse sort of way).

    The government issues a fatwa requiring minimum fuel efficiency standards (CAFE). Then, to put as big a roadblock in the way of achieving that goal, they issue a safety fatwa that requires increased materials be stuck/attached/pronged onto the vehicles so that they just miss the mileage rules. Then the manufacturers have to design lighter bolt-on parts that will still meet the safety rules, so that they might reach the fuel efficiency rules.

    And so on.

    It’s like the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.

    Or maybe it does, and there is a sinister purpose behind these ever-more-stringent rules. Some might even say that it’s a conspiracy.

  3. Are the new fat cars actually statistically safer? Or is that like every other government mandate, a shell game?

    If they are statistically and meaningfully safer then people should have the option to pay up for the safer car.

  4. I can’t have a volkswagon bug (old one) because it isn’t safe. But my motorcycles are just fine. Plenty safe enough. O_O wtf?

  5. The gub’mint has NO CONCEPT of diminishing returns.

    Find an extant example of the older cars Mr. Peters listed and outward visibility seems almost panoramic compared to a modern sedan. The cars today are atrocious in terms of visibility thanks to saaaafety regs that demand ever-thicker pillars and ever-higher beltlines.

    Call me crazy, but I think SEEING is a more imperative safety requirement than any gee-gaw…

  6. In 1997 I bought a 1989 Ford Festiva (not “Fiesta”) that had 178,000 miles on it. I paid $700 for it. Don’t know the engine size, but it was a 4-speed and had a carburetor. I think the car was actually designed by Kia, but was built by Ford, but not sure about that. The car was very small, but had great head room (my 6’9″ husband could fit in it) and the seat sat up on a little platform (or something) so it didn’t give the feeling of sitting DOWN inside the car. Everybody laughed at it, but that car got 40 mpg around town, and in spite of its high miles, it was extremely reliable! When I bought a newer car, I gave the Festiva to a young man who was in dire need , and after he was able to buy himself a “better” car, he gave the Festiva to a down-and-out coworker. It was still rolling. I rarely see Festivas on the road anymore, but when I do, I always offer to buy it from the owner and I always get the same response – – – “this is one of the best cars I’ve ever had.”

    • Hi Eileen!

      Amen. I have also enjoyed the high-mileage little runabouts which used to be commonly available but no longer are. The great tragedy is that with all the tech advances which have been made since the days of carbs and non-overdrive transmissions, cars today could be averaging 50-60 MPG, without resorting to hybrid technology.

      PS: Great to have another female posting (and a cat person, too!)

    • The Festiva was a Mazda design built by Kia in Korea and sold by Ford in North America in 1988–1993. It was sold as the Mazda 121 in some overseas markets. It had a 1.3–liter engine that in 1988 produced 58 hp in US trim, but that was sufficient for that small, light car. The Festiva was replaced by another Kia–built car in North America, the 1994–1997 Aspire, but in my opinion that car wasn’t as good. You still see Festivas around, but few Aspires.

      I had a 1988 LX with five-speed and factory air that I bought new. On the highway it could attain 50 mpg. I drove it numerous times on long vacation trips and was always comfortable because I could sit upright in the car. This one is still around with 400,000 miles on it, and my brother is overhauling it to put it back on the road. If they were rustproofed and well cared for, these little cars were troopers.

      About today’s cars, I think the mileage fatwas were put in place for three reasons by three somewhat different groups:

      1. The leftists remember cars such as the Festiva, Geo Metro, etc., and don’t understand why cars sold today cannot get that kind of mileage. They ignore all the safety and technology required on later cars that had driven up the weight. They want to punish the automakers.

      2. The environmentalists believe some of the old conspiracy stories such as the automakers supposedly buying patents for miracle fuel-saving devices to keep them off the market. Some people have heard these tales and still believe in the Fish carburetor over 50 years later. But by now the automakers would have used that technology had it worked, and anyway those patents were always public record. You can’t make a patent secret by buying the rights to it, but these clowns don’t understand that. They, too, want to punish the automakers.

      3. The leftists want to make cars unaffordable by requiring conflicting sets of regulations. The costs to meet mileage requirements on top of all the safety and technological stupidity will certainly make cars and light trucks more expensive. The ultimate goal is to push the little guy out of privately owned and self-driven vehicles. The leftists will eventually turn their attention to schemes to force older vehicles off the roads. In the meantime, watch the value of running used cars go up. Including older Festivas.

  7. Weight transfers poorly into fat. According to the BMI, I am obese, but it fails to take into consideration the composition of the weight, or mass, to be more accurate. I have always had very muscular legs and a much less muscular trunk.

    • True, Vonu…

      I am 200 pounds, considered “heavy” even for 6ft 3 according to the BMI charts. But I lift weights and am more muscular than the average dude – and my waist size is the same 32 it was in high school.

  8. We have three Ford Foci: a 2005, a 2009 and a 2015. Actually, we gave the ’05 to our daughter, but I still get to change the oil. The ’05 and ’09 are similar – durable little basic cars – but the 2015 is obviously much bigger and heavier, with too much electronic crap and an underside cover that makes service a pain. It seems more like a Fusion. Its efficiency doesn’t seem to suffer, but as you point out, it should be way better considering the technology under the hood and in the gearbox. The worst part is that you just can’t see out of this thing. Only with government experts in charge do you get safety features that make it so much harder for the driver to see his surroundings.

    • I had Generation 1 and Generation 2 Foci. I currently have a Generation 3 Focus. All got the same overall mileage of 30 mpg, even though the newer one was supposed to be better on gas. I’m guessing they got piggier and piggier with each generation.

      BTW, I totaled the second one because of saaaaafety. I got sideswiped because I couldn’t see a speeding van merging into the turning lane I was trying to enter. Damn wide pillars blocked my view. How is that safe?

      The airbags didn’t go off. They also didn’t go off when a high-riding monster truck rear-ended my first Focus at a stoplight and drove me under a SUV.

  9. Just look at a 1950 Nash Ambassador, you could park a new Fiat inside it and it weighs only 3500 pounds. My 1965 Comet weighs only 2700 pounds and looks like a big car compared to most cars today. I had a 1984 Renault Alliance, at 6’2″ I fit in it comfortably and it rode like a luxury car and I think it was less than a ton. Safety erased all the promised weight savings that technology was going to give us back in the 1970s and 80s

  10. Just recently I drove our 2002 Buick for almost the same amount of gas as my GF’s 2013 Hyundai. Our a/c worked and hers doesn’t . There should be a noticeable difference because our car was bigger and older. I was surprised.

    My grandfather had an 88 chev half ton with a 350 in it. Best gas mileage of any truck our family ever owned. Great power to start off with with my beginners license too lol.

    • Hi Peter,

      I get to test drive new cars each week, so I really see what’s going on – and what’s going on is atrocious mileage, which is ironic given the pretended obsession with MPGs uber alles.

      In real-word driving, most new mid-sized family cars with four cylinder engines I test drive average high 20s, low 30s. Most mid-sized crossovers average low 20s. With four cylinder engines.

      The turbo V6 Ford sells sucks at least as much gas as the V8, without the turbos – and both suck an outrageous amount of gas, regardless. I am not exaggerating when I state that my pushing-50-years-old V8 muscle car is only slightly thirstier than some of them.

      • I recently purchased a 2000 Ford Windstar with the 3.8 V6, to replace A Grand Caravan with 231000 miles and a leaking waterpump.
        I am lucky to get 15 MPG from the Ford, where the 2000 Caravan got reliably 19 mpg
        What would have to be done to remove the requirement that all factory safety equipment be functional?

        • Hi Ken,

          I feel your pain… and in re the federal safety mandates: They could be repealed and/or not enforced, but that is not likely to happen until enough Americans recover their senses and insist that their “safety” is their business exclusively…

          • Sat in my folks 2015 fiat 500 today, one of the smallest cars you can buy today. Average fuel “economy” on the gauge? 20.9 mpg. That is seriously terrible (granted they have the targa roof option which adds even more weight).

            • You could do better than that in a 1950 Nash Rambler, car that had a crude prewar flathead six-cylinder engine and a carb. Same with any number of 1950s and 1960s economy cars. (Heck, a mid-1950s Nash Metropolitan could get near 40 mpg.) Granted today’s cars are cleaner, safer, and more reliable, but as far as fuel efficiency not much progress.

              • My sister had a ’59 Rambler American that had that old Nash look. It also had the 6 cylinder flathead engine . Those were really economical cars, both in purchase price and operating cost.

                • Yes, they were quite economical especially with manual transmission and overdrive.

                  Your sister’s car had the Nash look because a ’59 Rambler American is a really a 1950 Nash Rambler with some minor updates.

                  The small Rambler had been discontinued after 1955 but brought back for 1958. (AMC had retained the tooling so development cost was nil.) With squared off body panels the same car soldiered on until 1963. The Company liked to wring as much out of a platform as possible. 🙂

                  • True, that. I have no idea what gas mileage she got with it, but that was such a quiet running engine that you could stand 10 feet away and not hear it idling.

                    It was a massively cool looking old ride, too. I should have bought it when she traded it in the early ’70s.

            • Hi Rich,

              Yup. It is startling to me every time I drive a press car from my place in the Woods down to the coffee shop in Roanoke where I hang out to work. The trip is 30 miles down, 30 back. Almost every new car I have test-driven during the past year will start the trip with a full tank and by the time I get home, it’s showing three quarters full. I drive fast, but not that fast.

              I am not exaggerating when I tell people my ’76 TA hardly uses more gas than many brand-new cars.

    • tell you the truth I don’t believe anyone when they say what mileage their vehicle gets. I had 12 -350 chevy work trucks and they got 10 MPG.

  11. I have been drive a Honda CRX for decades and it usually averages about 35 mpg on highway miles. The highest I ever got was 52 mpg.

    Back when gas was about $5.00/gallon, literally every time I stopped at a gas station to fill up, at least one person would come up to me and ask me if I wanted to sell my CRX to them.

    I’d just laugh at them!

    My CRX has been debt-free for about 20 years now after I paid off the 3 year used car loan. No crazy 84-month cars loans with $500/month payments for me…that’s just crazy.

    The car insurance for about the past 8 years has been a measly $30/month.

    A great, fun to drive car that is cheap to own.

    I don’t think I’ll ever sell it.

    • Hi GiveMeLiberty,

      I am jealous; have always wanted a CRX. I remember them when they were new and had a chance to drive a few over the years. They are fun to drive as well as being efficient to drive. That’s a combination very few new cars – if any – manage.

  12. This crap will never be repealed. Never.

    Somehow – we need to get the watermelons (environmentalists) to realize that this weight is harming “the planet.”

    The trick is – the environmentalists and the safety Nazis are often the same people.

    Not only do these cars use more fuel, they also use more energy to produce the fatter parts.

    The tires must be larger to support the additional fat load.
    The brakes must be larger to stop the higher kinetic energy of a “fat body in motion.”
    Suspensions and powertrains must support the fat load.
    The cumulative weight of all these fatties wears out the roads faster. This makes road construction more frequent. You want to talk about the epitome of wasting fuel – look at the “Average fuel economy” leading up to any construction lane closure (hundreds to thousands of cars idling, stop and go and creeping along at 0.05 mph).

    I know I’ll never get through. It has nothing to do with logic. It is all about control. If logic worked on these people, we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.

    People who should know better not only don’t care, they actually welcome it. After all, it is job security when you are a “safety” engineer.

    I was pointing out how much every new car weighs and how they get no better fuel economy than they did 30 years ago. I did this while waiting to get on a 4 post vehicle shaker to check for a rattle in one of parts.

    Mind you – I’m talking to 3 other engineers. Not politicians. Not bureaucrats. Not “concerned moms.” Not “consumer advocates.”


    I finished by saying I’ll never be buying a new car again since all new cars are way too fat and way too expensive.

    One of the engineers mentioned “we could use carbon fiber to reduce weight.” What part of all new cars are already too expensive did he miss?

    This is not going to end well if the “problem solvers” can’t even see what’s in front of their faces.

      • Hi Chang,

        The iA is a good car (made by Mazda, sol under the Toyota label) but it’s also heavy for its size. If it were several hundred pounds heavier – which it ought to be for its size – it would probably be averaging 35 or better!

      • Hey Chang,
        Only? You can actually use the word “only” in the same sentence as $19k? Wow!
        My first car a well used 1950 Dodge was “only” $55. My first house was “only” $9,300. including taxes!
        Both of these were user friendly, low maintenance and very durable.
        The car may have outweighed the house but, it still got about 15mpg.

        • And when the engine got a bit tired, you could lift off the head, drop the oil pan, pop out the pistons, lap the valves, clean away the carbon and sludge, put in a fresh set of rings (the “re-ring” type could often get your car through TWO ‘overhauls’ if the cylinder bores weren’t scored or out-of-round), rod bearing, gaskets. Slap it back together, it’d take a weekend at most…and you’d have 50K to 60K worth of reliable starting, decent power, and fuel economy, for cheap.

          Today, to just open the hood will set you back a minimum of $500. I’ve been quoted $750 to $1,000 for the “60K service” on my 2014 Ford Focus that I can do in one afternoon (and just did, for about $200 in parts and fluids, all Motorcraft, no cheapie crap). Today’s garages are notorious for preying on the ignorant, vulnerable, and just plain LAZY. The average American teenager would rather play video games than work on a car and/or get into the panties of the girl next door, the reason why this upcoming generation is going to shit.

          • Douglas,
            “The average American teenager would rather play video games than work on a car and/or get into the panties of the girl next door, the reason why this upcoming generation is going to shit.”

            Even before I was a teen all I thought about was,

            cars and vag
            planes and vag
            ships and vag
            bikes and vag
            tanks and vag
            etc…& vag

            • If a young fellow has pussy on the brain for 15 of his 16 average waking hours…he must be in a coma for an hour daily!

            • Hi Adam!

              Amen. Good buddy of mine was over the other day for some bullshitting. He has a 15-year-old boy. The kid plays video games endlessly. Shows zero interest in cars or even getting his license. His dad – my buddy – hauls his ass everywhere.

              I had a talk with the kid and asked him how he planned to take girls out and such if he doesn’t drive, doesn’t have a car. He shrugged and explained that he really didn’t care.

              I get part of this – as a newly single dude, back in the market. Women today are not what women were. The change since I was last on the prowl (early 2000s) is startling. Women – not all, but lots of them – seem to have been transformed by third wave feminist agit-prop into extremely unpleasant things, in spite of the usual pleasant things. The deal you are expected to transact is not appealing. I gather young girls are even worse.

              So I understand MGTOWing.

              But, I am not 15. I have been there and done that, many times. Would like more, certainly. But it’s not as though I’ve not had my time at the table. But fifteen? He’s got to be ready to explode. I feel terrible for him. For his entire generation.

              • Eric, sounds like this kid has it going on!

                If he can control his urges to the point where he does not let his lust override his good sense, and thus avoid entanglement in the dysfunctional meat market, where women now dominate…he is more of a man than most men! Kudoes to him!

                And let’s hope that he’s not surrounded by adults giving him bad advice and being bad examples- the type who try and persuade him otherwise and make him feel odd or inadequate for not “getting his”- which so often ends up leading to the early lifetime of ruin for most men.

                I get the feeling that these kids are seeing how bleak and worthless the system is- and have virtually already dropped-out- and that is a good thing.

                The bad thing is, without the right knowledge; and with the push from the media and their pooblik skool indoctrination, instead of gravitating toward Libertarianism, these kids are often led to socialism as an alternative to what they’ve been falsely convinced is the “capitalist system” around them.

                Dropping out, and not letting one’s dick override one’s judgment, is really the essential key to breaking free of this system- for it is participation and lust that is used to control and neutralize most men.

              • I think it’s a crock. I don’t know what is wrong with these neo puritanical goody two shoes. It’s crap. As far women go, white women are messed up. It has been festering for generations. It is manifesting itself now, but it started in the 50’s with sock hops and soda fountains, Fats Domino and Elvis. All just a bunch of crap. We have all seen the movies about prom nite. You know, the big jocks getting the pretty ones and all of that rot. Parents used to dress their little kids up for prom nite and some lost their virginity, some drank too much. Listened to shit music. Women began developing expectations. Some became embittered and joined a feminist movement of one kind or another. Some didn’t. It all started here. White women are well ahead in line of being fucked up. Women of color are catching up, but you have a better chance of finding a good black, hispanic, or asian woman. Big cities are better hunting grounds than rural areas. The women in rural areas are tatted up and on meth. Or they drink too much. Some still smoke. I look at it this way, if a woman treats me nicely I will respond back. I get zilch from white women. Others are much better. It all started with sports, sock hops, soda fountains, prom nite (which some parents confuse with a g-d wedding), and simplistic stupid music. Some things don’t change.

                • Swamp, most of what women have become can be attributed to men.

                  Men abdicated.

                  They gave up courtship, wife-hunting, seeking a suitable woman of good character and who would be helpful in complimenting the household by doing the things the man is not suited for, in exchange for frivolous no-strings sex. And if anything else comes of that, it is just happenstance.

                  They also abdicated by letting women get the upper hand- in the family, and finances, and in general; by catering to them just so the woman would not alienate them from the physical benefits. The “Happy wife, happy life” mentality.

                  Egalitarianism and “equality” finished off the deal. A man now has no way to control a woman. She is independent financially; yet is legally entitled to half the guy’s stuff; If she is physically restrained or punished, it is now called “abuse” and he goes to jail.

                  Our fathers let all this happen, just for the supposed benefit of free sex, and to have a wife and family in name only.

                  Free ain’t so free.

                  • It’s pretty easy to give up courtship when you take the risk of being accused of abuse and getting fired just for saying “man you look hot today”.

                    • Yeah, and if you don’t say it, then you’re “An insensitive clod who never pays any compliments”!

                      Society is now ruled by the hot-and-cold-running instant-changing emotionalism, vanity and cattiness of women; and now men are expected to not only accept that, but to behave in the same way- and many of them are.

              • The conventional view is that men are like animals and like seen on wild kingdom willing to pay any price for sex. That there is no cap on what women can demand. This is why we keep hearing this ‘man up’ thing no matter how bad it gets.

                The reality is that men’s willingness to pay is a distribution like any other market. As women demand more and more while offering less and less, more and more men simply refuse to buy.

                When I was in engineering school I thought the general unpleasantness of women was merely the result of the ratio. Now that and worse is the outside world. It’s a situation where a woman no matter how unpleasant, unaccomplished, and physically unappealing thinks she deserves a man in the top 10% of men. (which is somewhat valid when there are ten men to every woman like in engineering school)

                The mainstream solution to this is to tell men to ‘man up’. Great. but the top 10% is always the top 10%. It’s comparative, not absolute. The old ways gave men absolute standards that were achievable. Today’s are comparative and often unachievable for those without the right genetics.

                • I agree with you BrentP. I am 55 years old and never married. Many people used to think that something is wrong with a guy if he never marries, ie; he is defective, abusive, gay, or a loser.
                  I grew up with an abusive mother, so from the git-go I fully understood what it means to be living with a real bitch! I knew all along that most women were not that bad, and most women were actually great in comparison to her. However, I noticed that it was extremely easy for women to ruin a guys life by simply claiming abuse or child molestation without having proof. I also observed how courts always are on the side of the mother in divorce and child custody cases. Those events always reminded me of my own childhood situation where my father sucked at being a good parent and was seldom home even as my mother tried very hard to destroy my spirit be telling me very often that she dreads the day I was born. no woman would have me, and other poopy gems.
                  I very badly wanted to have children, but the thought of losing them in a divorce, never seeing them again, and being enslaved to the bitch legally for at least 18 years further deterred me from ever getting married. Why do only women have “free choice” when it comes to having and raising children.
                  Add to this my Myers-Briggs personality score; INTJ; which further makes spouse finding difficult.
                  I am presently dating a very nice and intelligent lady who understands the implications of my personality. She is too old to have any more children, and her only child is an adult now. I do not know whether things will get serious between us in the future or not, but I enjoy my time spent with her.

                  • Hey, Brian,

                    Ha! I’m an INTJ too- and 56 and never married- but thank goodness, I had a great mother and a great childhood.

                    I don’t think that we INTJs would make good husbands nor be happy being married. Glad I figured that out before ever meeting anyone whom I might have considered!

                    We made it alone this long (and I can’t speak for you, but I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the ride!)- I couldn’t see tossing it all now for something that would almost certainly end badly.

                    I found no comfort in women 30 years ago….I’m certainly not going to find any today, now that women and society in general have deteriorate so drastically even from what they were 30 years ago.

                    • Morning, Nunz!

                      I have been contemplating a rant about dating/women/marriage in Our Time, based on personal experience as well as the experiences of several friends – all remarkably similar. I doubt I will get married again – hell, I’ve barely dated. At least, I doubtI will ever get married again in the eyes of Uncle. Too much risk. The “contract” is legally binding but can be unilaterally abrogated by the other party at any time, the moment she decides she is “unhappy.” Then you lose your shirt in addition to your wife. Better to just agree between yourselves to a commitment which lasts as long as it lasts. If she decides she is “unhappy,” she can leave at any time – no lawyers, no problems. There’s the door. If she sticks it out and we stay together until I croak, then I would probably arrange it in my will that she gets my stuff. But while I live, my house and my stuff will remain in my name.

                      Only an idiot gets married in the current climate.

                    • So true, Eric!

                      Even back years ago when I used to entertain the possibility of marriage, I knew to avoid the state “marriage license”. If I had gotten married, it would have been with the benefit of a private covenant, and only with someone who takes their vows as seriously as I do.

                      I have to laugh when I see so many people having these typical marriage ceremonies, with SO much emphasis on costumes and food and such…. Perhaps if more people would skip the hoopla, and concentrate on the solemnity of the vows they are taking and the relationship they are entering into….

                      The thing is, one needs assurance that the relationship they are entering into will be permanent, since they are devoting so much of themselves and their life and finances, etc. to it- and the more so if kids are involved. And considering that time marches on for us all, who wants to waste the prime of their youth being devoted to someone, only to have that person leave on a whim? (I’m sure you know how THAT feels- OUCH!)

                      Society used to be set-up in such a way as to make such scenarios very difficult/near impossible- so that people would only get divorced in drastic cases- as opposed to unilateral whim- which is usually initiated by the woman.

                      It used to be understood that women needed control and restraint, because they are not merely men with vaginas. God made them to complement us- not to compete with us or be our “equals”.

                      Now the state has come along and essentially given women more power than that of men; made them independent, where no such independence would naturally exist; and has restrained men from restraining the child-like tendencies of women. Women are married to the state more so than to any man.

                      As we can see, that scheme is not working out very well for anyone! Families are becoming non-existent, or all mixed-up at best; NO ONE is happy. Children are suffering. Few women have a real, devoted man to grow old with- instead they struggle to support themselves and die alone, going through the latter half of their life just participating in consolation sex, because that is allv that is available- but they’ll never know real love. And men pay the price (Literally) and can never be all that they can be, because they now must fend for themselves at home, in addition to doing their thing in the business world.

                      Essentially, what we’re witnessing is the destruction of society.

                • We have again entered into the discussion of family relationships which has prompted me to post a relevant link to a video. Since I have never had a family as an adult, I feel that I should tell you folks where I am coming from first.
                  Back in the days when there were not many anarchist libertarian podcasts to listen to, I used to download Stefan Molyneux podcasts to listen to offline as I was driving truck OTR. I learned almost nothing from him because I had become an anarchist before he had; but his podcasts were vastly superior to listening to standard public statist terristeral radio programs and the constant replay of decades old music. On days where I had to listen to statist talk radio, I usually argued with Rush Limbaugh even though he could not hear me. These facts do NOT mean that I am a Stefan Molyneux fanboi! When more podcasts became available, I stopped downloading his stuff. I then heard that he became a Trump fanboi. I do not know whether that was true or not, but I have come across some of his recent Themtube videos which I think are pretty good. Here is a relevant video to this conversation we are presently talking about:

              • Eric, I guess I’m pretty boring, but I have to say that my wife of 30 years is the best thing that ever happened to me. Well, her and our daughter, who got a degree in math, is now gainfully employed, and doesn’t give a rat’s ass about politics. I am very blessed. My only complaint is that my wife does expect me to read her mind. Reminds me of an old Tim Allen routine where he says, “Here is a stop sign designed by a man.” Then he holds up a normal red sign with the word STOP on it. “And here is a stop sign designed by a woman.” He holds up a sign that says, “If you really knew me you would know what I want you to do.”

            • Video games and porno.
              Eliminate boredom from your life and you will never go outside your room. You won’t have children. You won’t want a car. Even poor backwards places will have this eventually. Then it won’t be just the rich societies that disappear, it will be all humanity. In the blink of an eye we have gone from everyone working, driving, and screwing to everyone parked in front of the video pleasure machine.

        • “My first car a well used 1950 Dodge was “only” $55.”

          Coincidentally, Doug, I once bought a ’55 Dodge pickup for $50. It had a flathead 6 that took about 8 hours to overhaul if you didn’t need to shop anything.

    • The watermelons are not interested in coming to any realization with you. They want you out of your car, period. Then they will work on the next step.

  13. My 1983 Dodge Colt 2 door hatch got me 39 mpg in city driving and up to 54 on the highway. It had a 1.4 L motor hooked to a 4 manual. No a/c, or PS. My 83 Colt weighed 1854 pounds. It had an 85 mph speedo, which was pegged several times for hours at a time.

    My 1964 Studebaker Commander 2D with a 6 cylinder motor and 3 on the column manual, got 39 in town and 44 on the road. It weighed 2950 pounds, more with the rust. It had a 120 mph speedo which was never pegged.

    • We had a ’79 or ’80 Colt. No AC, 4 speed but with the “Power/Economy” shifter, AM radio that could pick up stations better than any other radio we had and somehow we all were able to fit even though I was starting puberty and my sister was well in high school. Even the dog. A bunch of my sister’s classmates (probably hoping to impress her) once lifted up the back end just because they could.

  14. These fatwas, and compliance with the fatwas is completely dishonest. Government issues mandates, knowing full well they’re impossible to meet, but they “did something”, the children are saved, they can get their promotion to the next pay grade. The rules dictate that cars are built a certain way, and so they are, and that they get a certain gas mileage on the EPA test cycle, and so they do. However, outside of the test cycle, the cars, as Eric pointed out, are seriously thirsty. I bet you that Honda CRX does much closer in real life to whatever it scores on the test cycle than a modern car.

    I have a Ford Focus RS. It’s rated at 22/26. Not great, but expected for a performance car. Driving it like a complete clover, never hitting 3,000 RPM and accelerating like an anemic Prius, I can manage 18 mpg average. If I drive it like a normal person, it’s closer to 15 mpg. If I drive the way that car is meant to drive, it’s about 11 mpg on the street (4 mpg on the track).

    These wise farters of fatwas seem not to care about end goals, only that their rules are followed, which is what really pisses me off. Why am I subjected to counterproductive bullshit, where it would be slightly more palatable to be be subjected to bullshit which actually makes a difference? Bah! I object to all of this on principle, but what we have is double infuriating because of the dishonesty.

    • Hi OP,

      I harp on this:

      In a free country, why is it any of the government’s legitimate business to be interposing itself between the car manufacturer and car buyer? If the buyer wants a big vehicle, or one which uses more (or less) fuel, isn’t that his business? And isn’t it the proper business of the company building cars to meet the expressed needs and wants of buyers?

      How did it happen that the cars we buy – and the gas we pay for – is now the business of the government? That is to say, of a relative handful of government bureaucrats, who insolently countermand our expressed needs and wants?

      It is obnoxious to the very idea of “freedom.”

      • 100% agree. It’s a testament to the efficiencies of the market that we’re still driving and not living in the dark.

        I grew up under full, totalitarian communism. It’s for everyone’s good they say, but it’s the most dehumanizing system imaginable, as officials who somehow seem to have everything available to them are telling the rest of us, who have nothing available to us, how to live properly. We’re approaching some kind of totalitarianism here, it’s not communist, not quite sure what it is, but it’s just as dehumanizing. Here in Commiefornia, local schools teach men, particularly white men, that they’re oppressors, and if you argue against it, you’re racist. What is this? Perhaps it’s time to flee back to the other side of the iron curtain again, they’re more sane now.

        • ” Perhaps it’s time to flee back to the other side of the iron curtain again, they’re more sane now. Perhaps it’s time to flee back to the other side of the iron curtain again, they’re more sane now.”

          That’s certainly true of the RF. The other former soviets, at least have less powerful governments than the US, which makes it easier to live outside government control.

          • The last thing the “other side of the iron curtain” needs is a bunch of westerners moving in, if they are smart they will work as hard to keep us out as they do the rest of the migrants.

      • Eric

        yu might take note of the definition of “FASCISM”… government control of private means of production.

        The building of motor vehicles is the application of private means of production to the manufacture of a certain item which is then sold in the marketplace. Government now exherts CONTROL over that private means of production, dictating what MUST and MUST NOT be done.

        • Hi Tionico,

          Yes, agreed. But I avoid focusing on fascism per se because – ultimately – the enemy is authoritarian collectivism. Socialism amounts to the same thing as fascism: a small elite controls not only the people but their work product and how they work and what is produced. It is a mistake, I submit, to focus on one form of authoritarian collectivism rather than focus on the thing itself.

  15. If they lacked the power to issue (and enforce) such fatwas, we’d have lighter and more economical cars that would almost certainly be quicker and cheaper, too.

    The first sentence of the Constitution says “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”. Years ago, the kangaroos on the US Supreme Court decided the authors of the US Constitution forgot to write in at the end of this sentence, “unless the Congress decides it would be in their and the President’s best interest to give this power to a non-elected person or persons working in the Government. In 2016, Senator Mike Lee of Utah discovered 97% of new laws were written by administrative agencies and only 3% by Congress.

    It’s pretty hopeless and unless one enjoys anal sex, he should be planning and investing for his move to a freer Country. It’s never going to get any better – only worse.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here