OT: Fast Forward to the 21st Century

[glennard]

All I want is 'Highway Improvement'.  The auto industry is trying to move America into their 'living room' on the Interstate.  A couple of dollars of chips and software!  14-17 million new cars every year are placed on the highway-- in front of me FIRMLY in the left lane doing 5 mph less than everyone else.  I want an Automated Highway to move those *&^$JH)&% out of the way.  It also would space the cars, have a uniform lane speed, turn off Statie's flashing lights, move accidents within five minutes, etc, etc.  This is possible now.  The saved time, fuel, rage, etc would more than pay for the cost.
  And while I'm at it- why are there ANY non pavement inserts on the driving surface??   Manhole covers, valve access, drains, phone and cable access, crappy expansion joints, etc, etc all lead to potholes.
   I don't think there is one 'Slow traffic keep right' sign in the state of Mass.
    We Americans gotta realize, soon, we are not being well served by our 'elected' officals.  The billions of gas tax dollars should give us a better highway system.

[Paddy_Crow]

quote:Originally posted by seattle_Jerry

Actually, if I recall, to some extent they did see 9/11 coming but upper management didn't do anything with the intel. Had we not been dependent on middle east oil, we wouldn't have been over there creating the conditions that spawned the terrorists in the first place.

Anyone with a lick of sense could have seen the mortgage thing coming. Banks were blinded by greed. I sold all my property slightly before it peaked and am renting waiting for rock bottom.
I knew way too many people that were qualifying for houses that there was no way they could afford.

At this point the auto industry can't afford not to put money into engineering. Producing a car that is inferior to the competition is not the way to drum up sales.

I agree that this is a problem that should have been being worked on at least since the 70's gas crunch. There is no good reason not to already have a solution on the shelf ready to go.

If I remember right the Japanese are on a 3 year schedule for complete redesigns. How many generations of US cars had the same engines with minor tweaks?

Having technology ready to implement is one thing. Having a factory sitting idle waiting to be turned on is completely another. It takes time to take a design off the shelf and tool up a factory. I can't think of a single business that can afford to have a capital asset like an assembly plant sitting there making nothing just in case the market changes. The US automakers have quite a few technologies "on the shelf," but it still takes a few years to put it in production. Ford is going to be bringing many European models into the US market, but some engineering is required to meet US specific safety and emissions laws. Even switching plants over to build existing products takes time and capital.

The Japanese rarely develop an all new powertrain. They've been putting the same basic engines into the Camry since the early 90's with minor tweaks. New engines and transmissions change the the equation.

I guess it's obvious who my employer is, although I'd rather not come right out and divulge that. I see a lot of speculation on the internet about the US auto business that is so far off the mark it would be humorous if it wasn't so insulting. Normally I don't take it personally, but sometimes I feel compelled to respond.

[hill]

I'm thinking of changing my handle to Luddite. Give me crank windows, manually adjustable seats etc...

[seattle_Jerry]

"The Japanese rarely develop an all new powertrain. They've been putting the same basic engines into the Camry since the early 90's with minor tweaks. New engines and transmissions change the the equation."

It seems that the Camry got a new series engine (and body) every 4 years except for between 2000 and 2006 when it appears they were busy with working on Hybrid technology. They still offered the previous series engine on each new body model at a lower price point.

1980-82 Camry had the T series engine.

For 1982-86 they introduced the S series engine, and kept the T series as well as added a turbo diesel for different price points.

1986-90 introduced VZ series engine, and kept S series for other price points (no more T series)

In 1994 the MZ series engine debuted

In 2000 it was the AZ series

They stuck with the AZ until 2006 when it got the GR series (first seen on other models in 2002) plus some gas/electric hybrids motor options

The Camry gets a new motor this year. It also got a new body with each of those engine changes.

[seattle_Jerry]

Conversely:
1958–1976 FE V8 — big-block
1958–1971 Generation I (332/352/360/361/390)
1962–1973 Generation II (406/410/427/428)
1965–1968 Ford 427 side oiler
1958–1981 Super Duty truck engine — big-block (401/477/534)
1962–2000 Windsor V8 — small-block (221/255/260/289/289HP/302/351W/Boss 302)
1968–1997 385 V8 — big-block (370/429/460/514)
1970–1982 335/Cleveland V8 — mid-sized (351 Cleveland/400/351M/Boss 351)
1983–present Ford/Navistar Diesel V8
1983–1987 — 6.9 L IDI (indirect injection)
1988–1993 — 7.3 L IDI
1993–1994 — 7.3 L IDI with Turbo
1994–2003.5 — 7.3 L DI (direct injection) "Power Stroke"
1991–present Modular V8 —OHC 4.6/5.4 L V8
1997–present Triton V8 — truck versions of the Ford Modular V8

1967-1984 Cadillac "new" V8
1981-1995 Cadillac HT V8
1948-1990 Oldsmobile Rocket V8
1952-1980 Buick Fireball V8
1954-2003 Chevrolet "small-block" V8 (originally "Turbo-Fire", now referred to as GM Generation I; see also GM Vortec engine)
1954-1980 Pontiac V8 (also modified for GMC Truck models)
1958-1965 Chevrolet W V8 (also referred to as "Turbo-Thrust")
1961-1963 GM Aluminum V8 (now better known as the Rover V8)
1966-1970s GMC Truck V8 (derived from the GMC V6)
1965-present Chevrolet "big-block" V8 (originally "Turbo-Jet"; see also GM Vortec engine)
1991-present GM Northstar V8 (also known as the Aurora V8)
1992-1997 GM LT V8 (also referred to as Generation II; derived from Small-Block V8)
1996-present GM LS V8 (referred to as Generation III or IV, depending on type; derived fron LT V8; see also GM Vortec engine)
1996-present GM Vortec V8 (derived from Small-Block, LS, and Big-Block engines)

[seattle_Jerry]

I agree Paddy that it takes time to tool up...Chevy Volt 2010.

Something that I find ridiculous is that there are different regulations/specs to meet for the Euro, US and Japanese markets. You would think somebody could do some diplomatic/lobby work and get the regulations standardized. I know emissions would be a headache to negotiate...

[Paddy_Crow]

quote:Originally posted by seattle_Jerry

"The Japanese rarely develop an all new powertrain. They've been putting the same basic engines into the Camry since the early 90's with minor tweaks. New engines and transmissions change the the equation."

It seems that the Camry got a new series engine (and body) every 4 years except for between 2000 and 2006 when it appears they were busy with working on Hybrid technology. They still offered the previous series engine on each new body model at a lower price point.

1980-82 Camry had the T series engine.

For 1982-86 they introduced the S series engine, and kept the T series as well as added a turbo diesel for different price points.

1986-90 introduced VZ series engine, and kept S series for other price points (no more T series)

In 1994 the MZ series engine debuted

In 2000 it was the AZ series

They stuck with the AZ until 2006 when it got the GR series (first seen on other models in 2002) plus some gas/electric hybrids motor options

The Camry gets a new motor this year. It also got a new body with each of those engine changes.

Giving an engine a different name does not make it all new. From what I recall, the displacement on the I-4 and the V-6 have changed once or twice over the years, but the engine architecture has been essentially unchanged. I'm just going by memory and I could be wrong as I'm no expert on Toyota powertrains. But introducing an all new engine every four years for each model would be incredibly wasteful and not typical Toyota behavior.

Similarly, the GM "small block" appeared in several different displacements and configurations over the years. It's still one architecture.

Now, to get back on topic... I got a chance to drive a couple prototype hybrids and a fuel cell vehicle today. The fuel cell has a long way to go. I found the weight distribution to be unfamiliar, like it wanted to oversteer a bit. It was also way too slow for my taste, I think it was rated around 80 hP.

[seattle_Jerry]

The weirdest part for me when driving electric cars is the lack of traditional engine noise. That and the different torque "curve".

Has anyone driven a Tesla?

[tuultyme]

We have a great cup holder in our cars. You just have to get the right cup.
Download Attachment: cup holders copy.gif
43.79 KB

[Witt]

.......You find the answer to your questions in the book: "THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY" by BROCK YATES, published in "1983 !!!!!" by EMPIRE BOOKS and distributed by HARPER & ROW PUBLISHERS, INC.
Makes good reading for anybody that still has not grasp the idea why the American Auto Industry is doomed.

CHEERS !
WITT !

.......on another note, don't we love our Pagodas partly because of the absends of all these new electric gimmics.....I certainly can do without them I love my Pagoda, my 1986 VW Jetta and my 1978 VW van just the way they are.....furthermore, arent we supposed to direct ALL our attention to the task at hand when driving? Cup-holders? you must be kidding .....can't you drink your coffee at home? And now we are being distracted by more gadgets to distract us ........put that cel-phone down please........if you dont know where you are going get directions from the internet BEFORE you are leaving.....both hands on the steering wheel, just like they teach you in driving-school , you know what a driving school is ?

CHEERS !
WITT !

Paddy Crow,

I would certainly agree it takes time to put a new car on the market.... but the concept of developing a fuel efficient car that gets high gas mileage is big picture and something far beyond thinking about the next model year car with better cup holders. They COULD and SHOULD have had something like that in their back pocket for years. It's all about strategy, planning, and good management. I'm in a management role with a very large corporation, we think FAR in advance trying to anticipate where the market is going to go in our business, you have to or you end up like GM. In our space it's extremely difficult to see 2-3 years in advance, in the car business I find it beyond belief that the guys at the top running these companies could not 5, 10, 15 years back have seen the fact that oil prices are prone to huge increases over time considering where we get most of it and the state of world politics in the supplying countries that for the most part despise Americans and have for years, High school kids can see that.

They are and have been capable of doing it and could have had something ready but they were greedy and were making big bucks on SUV's bloated with stupid options and got caught with their pants down. Now they (The CEO of GM in particular) are running around blaming the "high cost of benefits" they have to pay their workers for the fact they are losing money. What a disgrace.  Are we to believe Asian companies are blowing them away in sales, developing innovative and efficient cars and crushing their revenues because they (GM) have to pay higher benefits to their employees???, it's just completely pathetic and insulting to hear nonsense like that. ALL American companies have high benefit costs, and the well run ones still make very solid profits and are strong and vibrant.

I'm a proud American who wants to buy American as much as possible and see our country prosper but don't expect me or anybody else to buy things that don't meet the need.

I agree, they are not losing 10b because they are in cahoots with the oil companies. They are losing 10b because they (executive management) are losers.

On a happier note I'm all for more and better cup holders!


 

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Paddy_Crow

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mark280SL

An interesting post Michael, I enjoyed reading it.

On one hand I think I really like the fact american car companies are bringing these technological improvements and options to the market.

On the other hand I wonder how many of these cars will be around as long as our 113s and how fixable some of these things will be when these cars age.

I also really have to wonder why in these times of such intense worldwide concern about greenhouse gases, fuel prices, and energy conservation they are putting out cars that only get 24mpg. It makes me think the management of these companies are out of touch, or maybe in cahoots with the oil compaines or who knows what. I simply can't believe they can't put out a fleet with 30-50% higher mileage ratings if they put their minds and resources to it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

New car models are not developed in a few months. It takes roughly three years to bring them to market. And, frankly, until the last six months consumers in the US have not been buying the more fuel efficient models. The fleet is a reflection of what sells (or what sold in the recent past).

If the US auto execs were in cahoots with the oil companies, do you think they'd be losing $10B per quarter?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">