Automotive Development

Yeah, all of that. I bought a 2007 Ford Focus. It is loaded with some stuff that I wanted, but it is also loaded with stuff I didn't need. I have 16" wheels and independant rear suspension that eats rear tires. What ever happened to a trailer axel in the back of a front wheel drive car? Rear tires used to last about 80k miles if not rotated. Why do I need 16" tires to drive this econo box to work? I think this is my first and last new car. I knew there was a reason I always drove junk.

Hello ronseto.

I am pretty much with you on this. I prefer to drive older cars, because I can work on them.

I have a 1988 Ford Conversion van, third or fourth owner. The starter motor began to complain. Around $60.00 for a rebuilt, 45 minutes under the van, and done. Starter relay replacement included in the time. About 160K on the vehicle, STILL had the factory original starter motor.

I am on a project to turn the van into a 'Chick Magnet'. Many of the modifications I have made would have been much more difficult on a newer truck. For example, to energize these magnets, I needed more current. The underhood space is VERY limited on vans, so I installed the battery array in the back, and charge them with an alternator driven by the modified vehicle driveline, and an over-unity device. (I probably should find a way to vent some of that battery gas outside.)

Don't worry about the build up of gasses inside the van. Just use a lighter to check for any battery venting that causes puddles on the floor. Soon enough the acid will rot away the floor anyway, and then the acid will drain out, and the fumes will escape.

I will agree with a lot of what you say, but I feel you must pass some blame to the lawyers of this world we live in. When lawyers can sue Mc Donalds for millions for some moron spilling hot coffee on her lap, How scared do you think auto manufacturers are with 4,000 pound cars in the hands of people that can't drive a cup of coffee from their hand to their mouth without a collision. Think about padded dashboards, padded rear-view mirrors, rubber window crank knobs. Who was behind these wonderful devices?

As for that 1088 Ford. It also has electronic fuel injection. Computer controlled emission systems, and an electronic ignition system. It is all a matter of what level of advancement a person is willing to accept.

I am old enough to remember when the hot rodders were ripping out the electronic ignition distributors and putting in duel, or single point distributors. How many people removed feedback carburetors and replaced them with similar models from the late sixties instead? I was just a little too young to remember the absolute disgust of automatic transmissions. There were some cars running B&M Hydromatic transmissions that were forcing the nonbelievers to shut up. Today we know better.

I am afraid we are forced to take the good with the bad. I have no answers for this, other than to build myself.

The design (if you can call it that) of cars these day is dictated more by accountants and lawyers than engineers.

This explains why we have ABS, Electronic Stability Systems and Multiple Air Bags instead of vehicles that are designed to be stable and predictable in their behaviour.

Its cheaper to put a box of electronics in to correct for fundamentally flaws in the design than to actually fix the problem in the first place. Stupidly we get moron politicians who are desperate to be "seen" to be doing something about "safety" or the road toll who drive the legislation to mandate their installation.

Personally I would "Option Delete" the following from my next new car if I could. Air Bags, Antilok Brakes, Stability Control System, Traction Control, Cruise Control, Computer controlled Automatic Transmission. That would save me the best side of 100kg of unnecessary ballast which over the life of my ownership of the vehicle (I usually keep them till the wheels fall off a third time). It also would save me a considerable amount of fuel too. I average 120,000km a year. In Australia we tend to either just go around the corner or the other side of the known universe in our daily commute or keeping in touch with friends, so racking up the Kms is easy to do.

I have two Volvo 740's, one has ABS instead of the superior triangulated dual circuit braking system, guess which one I prefer to commute with. The ABS car will get upgraded to the triangulated system as soon as I get the time.

The last "New" car I had(A company car), gave me such grief with the transmission that I was glad to give it back to the company when I left. Several trips to the dealer with no joy. The problem was that it would chatter/hunt between gears in medium to heavy traffic (city urban crawl) under light throttle. This was a software issue that was beyond the ability of the dealer/manufacturer to deal with. It made the daily commute tedious to say the least. I hate driving cars which make me cranky..

I have fun at dealerships(I get dragged along to run interference for my lady friends), especially when the salesdude starts extolling the virtues of the vehicle by pointing out how many air bags are fitted and that it has a stability control system. To whit I pose, "So your telling me this vehicle is fundamentally flawed in its primary and secondary safety engineering and I'm guaranteed to have an accident in it anytime I dare to drive it because otherwise why would all this other stuff be put in the car?" They usually don't have an answer, and scurry away to make them selves a coffee.

If you were serious about safety you'd bar cruise control, the number of people who have had unfortunate excusions at high speed because they fell asleep on country roads is high. I've proven that I can drive the car quicker and more economically on a trip without it, Cruise control doesn't make the drive any easier only lazier.

In car GPS systems are another waste, I much prefer to use a street directory and plan my trip before I set out. Haven't used an in car GPS map system yet that beats a street directory.

Of course the expected lifespan of the average car has fallen considerably which is why so much "sophistication" (read gee gaws) are installed. Manufacturers used to boast of 20 year life spans, now they sell you a 5 year warrenty knowing the averarage owner will trade it in every three years. Once its a "Used" car there is little need to satisfy the new owners expectation of longevity. So a car has to be "loaded" to provide "value" for the money spent on it. Which brings us back to Bean Counter Engineering.

Agreed with benefits mentioned above for older cars. I have a 1984 Mercedes 300 SD turbodiesel with over 350K miles on it. I bought it a couple years ago with 319K miles and needed a bit of work to get it road worthy. Yes, old parts wear out and need to be replaced, but repair bills are much less than payments on a new one. I put a Greasecar kit in it and run it on used cooking oil. Older cars work great for this because they don't have all the computer controls which you often need to "out-smart". Another great benefit not yet mentioned is the property tax on vehicles! The tax on a new car in South Carolina is pretty stiff! But it declines with age and mileage of the vehicle. The property tax on my '84 benz is $20.05 and the tax on my '97 F-150 is $138.18 - I can afford that!

I have always had a soft spot for older and simpler cars.

After watching these crash test videos of a 1959 Chevy Bel Air vs 2009 Chevy Malibu I am not so sure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHp1GAFQzto

http://cr4.globalspec.com/edit/newcomment?objectid=54704&objecttype=THREAD

Of course there are plenty of skeptics about the ifs and buts but the image of the Bel Air's dash exploding into the drivers face has stuck with me.

When I first saw this staged crash, I kept in mind a few things.

It was staged. The folks doing it want to push their agenda: new cars are safe. The odds that the 59 was as good as new 'beneath the skin' are slim. If it were badly fixed up from rust-bucket condition, it would serve them better, and fall apart more completely. I saw a 5 year old 1966 full-sized Ford hit a gasoline truck head on at about 40 mph. The guys had no shoulder belts, but got out and survived, with some bleeding. The Ford was 200 feet in front of me at impact. The car did not fall apart. I have seen lots of cars from real crashes in real junkyards. None of them fell apart like the 59 in the staged crash. It was not faked, but the subject car was not like real cars of that or any other decade.

Remember the pickup headon into the Hummer (2or3?) where the Hummer lost badly?

No one wins in a head on crash. Pick only roads with a median barrier. Drive to fore-see and avoid these.

Show how a 25 year old sports car (or a 50 year old US sedan) behaves after sliding on gravel on a highway curve, versus any modern SUV, tall-car etc. All the rubber interior parts do little to help an unbelted occupant in a violent roll-over. They die. The RX7 or 944 driver is perturbed by the slide, but steers back on the road, and continues on his trip instead.

Most of my cars have carburetors, a fwe have mechanical fuel injection, and a few more have EFI. The EFI is nice, but it barely makes up for all the other modern stuff when it goes wrong.

If you want to survive (not simply avoid) head on crashes, get a 10 - 15 year old NASCAR CUP car, and use a good helmet and HANS. Of course put in a smallish engine for fuel economy and reliability. 4 speed 289 2 barrel? Paint it dark silver so it will fit in, or yellow so stupid drivers will notice you before they pull into your path with their lattes and makup brushes.

The only real disagreement I have with you is the frames that were used in the 58 to 64 full sized Chevys. The X frame left very little resistance to side impacts.

It is still possible to build a basic, functional automobile with a selling price well under $5,000. I no longer have a link to the reference, but GM is building a mini van in China that sells for something like $4,000. Of course, GM won't sell this outside of China...even if the politicians would allow it.

I understand that Tata of India also has a "super-economy" vehicle either under development or in early production. Again, I don't believe you can purchase it outside of India...

Reminds me of the original Volkswagen- priced under $2,000 when everything else was north of $5,000...

Renault assemblies a "simple car" without anything but basics in a low wages eastern European country the name is LOGAN. It has a fantastic success!

Dude, a good old boy from Mississippi such as yourself (I spent several years in Biloxi as a youngster, father was career AF, then I went back as a SeaBee) should drive a pick up truck. Checy used to make a model called the work truck which was very basic. You can buy a 4 banger Ranger with nothing on it, even has a stick (Mine has 150,000 miles and just keeps going). Just don't give me a rice burner.