And the Real Winner Is…

Murilee Martin
by Murilee Martin
and the em real em winner is 8230

The Index of Effluency goes to the LeMons team that accomplishes a feat far beyond their vehicle’s purported abilities, and the chances for an IOE go way, way up when you race a General Motors product. The IOE chase in the Loudon Annoying 24 Hours of LeMons [s]d[/s]evolved into a Chevette-versus-Storm battle early on and stayed that way all weekend.

By Sunday afternoon, LeMons HQ had more or less decided that whichever of the two had the most laps at the end was going to take home the Index of Effluency and the $1,501 in prize money that accompanies it. The ’93 Geo Storm of the Brooklyn Bomb Squad, with its automatic transmission and gas-sipping lo-po engine, struggled with the ’85 Chevrolet Chevette of Team Chev-itte Where The Sun Don’t Shine (yes, they were still making Chevettes in 1985; in fact, The General made them through the 1987 model year) tooth and nail from start to finish. At one point, one of the Geo drivers was heard enthusing over his “epic duel with the Chevette,” a phrase we’re pretty sure had never been uttered before. In the end, the Chevy beat the Geo by a mere 5 laps, 349 to 344.

The Chevette stayed out of the way of the quicker cars (i.e., just about everything that didn’t have a Geo nameplate) and avoided the Penalty Box, and in the end it stood in 26th place out of 54 entries. Congratulations, Chev-itte Where The Sun Don’t Shine!

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 10 comments
  • David C. Holzman David C. Holzman on May 09, 2011

    Proof that the little guy can win!

  • Tony Lanterman Tony Lanterman on May 10, 2011

    The pizza delivery cars where I worked my senior year of high school were all 1987 Chevettes with automatic transmissions. Car #1 was gutless, but had good breaks. Car #2 was rarely functional. Car #3 lost half it's rear axle one day (fell off while going around a corner). Car #4 had "power" but rather poor brakes. The loaner Ford Escorts from the cross town store were a decadent luxury by comparison.

  • Nrd515 I bought an '88 S10 Blazer with the 4.3. We had it 4 years and put just about 48K on it with a bunch of trips to Nebraska and S. Dakota to see relatives. It had a couple of minor issues when new, a piece of trim fell off the first day, and it had a seriously big oil leak soon after we got it. The amazinly tiny starter failed at about 40K, it was fixed under some sort of secret warranty and we got a new Silverado as a loaner. Other than that, and a couple of tires that blew when I ran over some junk on the road, it was a rock. I hated the dash instrumentation, and being built like a gorilla, it was about an inch and a half too narrow for my giant shoulders, but it drove fine, and was my second most trouble free vehicle ever, only beaten by my '82 K5 Blazer, which had zero issues for nearly 50K miles. We sold the S10 to a friend, who had it over 20 years and over 400,000 miles on the original short block! It had a couple of transmissions, a couple of valve jobs, a rear end rebuild at 300K, was stolen and vandalized twice, cut open like a tin can when a diabetic truck driver passed out(We were all impressed at the lack of rust inside the rear quarters at almost 10 years old, and it just went on and on. Ziebart did a good job on that Blazer. All three of his sons learned to drive in it, and it was only sent to the boneyard when the area above the windshield had rusted to the point it was like taking a shower when it rained. He now has a Jeep that he's put a ton of money into. He says he misses the S10's reliablity a lot these days, the Jeep is in the shop a lot.
  • Jeff S Most densely populated areas have emission testing and removing catalytic converters and altering pollution devices will cause your vehicle to fail emission testing which could effect renewing license plates. In less populated areas where emission testing is not done there would probably not be any legal consequences and the converter could either be removed or gutted both without having to buy specific parts for bypassing emissions. Tampering with emission systems would make it harder to resell a vehicle but if you plan on keeping the vehicle and literally running it till the wheels fall off there is not much that can be done if there is no emission testing. I did have a cat removed on a car long before mandatory emission testing and it did get better mpgs and it ran better. Also had a cat gutted on my S-10 which was close to 20 years old which increased performance and efficiency but that was in a state that did not require emission testing just that reformulated gas be sold during the Summer months. I would probably not do it again because after market converters are not that expensive on older S-10s compared to many of the newer vehicles. On newer vehicles it can effect other systems that are related to the operating and the running of the vehicle. A little harder to defeat pollution devices on newer vehicles with all the systems run by microprocessors but if someone wants to do it they can. This law could be addressing the modified diesels that are made into coal rollers just as much as the gasoline powered vehicles with cats. You probably will still be able to buy equipment that would modify the performance of a vehicles as long as the emission equipment is not altered.
  • ToolGuy I wonder if Vin Diesel requires DEF.(Does he have issues with Sulfur in concentrations above 15ppm?)
  • ToolGuy Presented for discussion: https://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper2/thoreau/civil.html
  • Kevin Ford can do what it's always done. Offer buyouts to retirement age employees, and transfers to operating facilities to those who aren't retirement age. Plus, the transition to electric isn't going to be a finger snap one time event. It's going to occur over a few model years. What's a more interesting question is: Where will today's youth find jobs in the auto industry given the lower employment levels?
Next