The weirdest thing to me about the Camaro's bumpers in those years is that Pontiac managed to hide them pretty effectively with their '74 bumper refresh. So why not Chevy?

Depends on who you ask and how specific you want to get. For example, I measure my fuel economy by filling my tank, resetting my trip meter, and going until the next fuel up. Then I divide the miles I went by the gallons it took to fill the tank back up, and voila, mpg. But you don't need exact numbers down to the…

They're both distance to fuel ratios. But yeah, at best I'd say they should be displayed together, but an outright switch would just be annoying.

Lol, but if you can convert back and forth, is there really a "better" measurement? I mean, why not change speed to days per 1,000 miles? This whole thing just seems silly. It seems pretty obvious that it's easier to improve on low numbers than it is to improve on high ones. To double the distance fuel will let you…

But that seems just as easy to do in miles per gallon. If you know the distance and you know your fuel consumption, just divide the distance by the mpg number to get the number of gallons consumed.

Liters per 100km is just a different way of saying the exact same thing. My car averages about 22 mpg in the winter. So, if I need to go 120 miles (as I often do), it's going to take almsot 5 gallons of gas.

Judging by the title, I was expecting this. Now that part of the title just seems unnecessary.

False. Nowadays even convertibles are acceptably stiff. Sports car convertibles are typically strengthened elsewhere, which usually mean the weight goes up a bit or, as has been the case more frequently these days, stays about the same.

Seems like an odd thing to loathe. I tend to prefer a hard-top over a soft-top, but I don't loathe convertibles if they've been done right.

Chassis is pretty much all that matters in the eyes of the law. I could put a Lamborghini V12 with a sleek aerodynamic body on the chassis of a Model T and on the registration it would say "1921 Ford Model T."

But compared to earlier Camaros and equivalent Trans Ams? You'd be insane to think the '74-'77 Camaro tail lights look better than those.

I was thinking about this the other day. But it does kind of prove both points! On one hand, they are Camaro tail lights, but on the other, the four round tail lights look undeniably better than later Camaro tail lights.

Do you also complain about Top Gear focusing too much on England?

This one worked though. http://jalopnik.com/5900586/identify-this-car-part-and-help-catch-a-killer

Hey Rutledge!

VS, I agree with your sentiment, but even most RWD cars have over 50% of the weight over the front. Also, I'm pretty sure my old-school Quattro qualifies as RWD bias, or at the very least, not FWD bias.

I said it brought it to mind, not that they are the same. The curve of the tach looks similar, but stretched more horizontally.

The only thing it brought to mind for me was the old C4-gen digital tachometers.

I actually remembered it too, but not exactly which story it was from. lol

They'd need to make speed limits reasonable before speed cameras wouldn't cause an all out revolt. Too often I travel on an 8-lane highway that wraps around Indy (I-465) where the speed limit is 55. Yesterday I accidentally ended up doing 75 while merging on just to flow with traffic.