disabled modeler Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Welcome to America, if are government cann't mess it up, just give them a minute. Wait a few more years when there all electric,,, Yeah....a true muscle car needs a V-8....they will impress me when they can get over 400,000. miles from a 4 or 6 cyl. What is next?...front wheel drive only 1 ton pickups for the farmers to use with a 4 or 6 cyl?...yeah they will sell lots of those to the farmers that haul/tow heavy loads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Not sure what relevance the B-52 has to the discussion -- I didn't say that old technology couldn't be reliable. There are enough 1920s racing cars, 1940s warbirds and 1900s steam engines around in the UK for that to be a given, for me, not to mention the odd 150-year old wooden ship. You're the one who is claiming that NEW technology is bound to be less reliable because it's more complex -- where's the evidence of that from a B-52? Secondly, the 777 is pretty far from all-composite structure -- about 10%, IIRC. I covered aerospace for an engineering materials magazine in the early 90s, and saw the parts being tested at Boeing, so I know what goes into one. You want an ALL-composite airframe, you'll struggle to find one since the Beech Starship -- maybe the Rutan/Virgin White Knight... The 787 is up to about half composite materials. And of course, it's "yet to be seen" how long aircraft with significant amounts of composite material fly for -- they're designed to fly for a lot longer than they've been in service for. What I do know is that all the materials science, all the extensive fatigue testing to get the things certified over the last 20 years, and all the increasingly incredible computer modelling work that's been done on the materials and structures suggests that they have massively better resistance to corrosion and fatigue than any metal. ...and I wasn't thinking of the F-22 or F-35. If the Pentagon wants to procure aircraft designed to "fight the last war rather than the next one" that's its prerogative, and it's up to you as US taxpayers to tell them whether you want them to or not. Anyway, that's a doctrinal problem, not an engineering one. As for "serviced in combat conditions" -- what does that really mean? The track record of serviceability of Russian supplied MiG 29s around the world isn't anything to write home about, let alone in an actual combat scenario (if you can find one...). A Mig-35 is state of the art modern fighter with the latest Russian and Western electronics systems onboard, intended to compete (note, not "fight") with the Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen. It's hardly an "austere" fighter for lengthy remote deployments in the field. I don't doubt that it's much more easily serviced in the field than an F-22, but then so's the Starship Enterprise, as has been repeatedly proven... Anyway, I'm not saying that older technology is unreliable. You're asserting that new technology inevitably is. None of those points provides any evidence for that... bestest, M. Paragraph 1. 1920s racing cars, warbirds, et al aren't currently deployed operational military aircraft. The B-52 is, and one reason it is still capable of performing its (obsolete) job is that it has much added contemporary technology. It's a blend of the old and new, and it works pretty well. Paragraph 2. I mis-typed 777, meaning 787. The 787 has composite wing spars. It doesn't get any more "structural" than that. The Cirrus SR 20 and SR 22, which I spent a significant part of my professional career designing field-repair procedures for, are ALL COMPOSITE STRUCTURES. So are the Columbia, and several kit planes. Also just about every sailplane manufactured in Germany since 1957. These aircraft are regularly re-certified for more allowable hours on the airframes, as properly designed composite structures don't fatigue. I'm not opposed to technology. I'm opposed to needlessly complex technology. Any engineer can cobble up an overly-complex mess. It takes a good engineer to do the same job with simplicity and elegance, and to make it as easy as possible for the poor SOB who will eventually have to work on the thing. One idiotic design flaw I just recently encountered...almost EVERY front end suspension component in a well-maintained 150,000 mile 2001 vehicle I had the pleasure to do extensive work on is completely worn out...simply because the designers failed to incorporate any means to lubricate the tie-rod ends, ball joints or "sealed for life" wheel bearings (which require the suspension to be entirely dismantled to replace, at significant expense). Another $5 to $10 per vehicle (at most) would have saved the current owner somewhere around $1000, once everything is replaced with OEM quality components. By contrast, my own 275,000 mile truck has a nice, tight, son-squeaky front end that doesn't wander all over the road and holds alignment...simply because it has grease fittings at the wear points, and easily-serviced bearings that only require removal of the wheels to access. Edited January 14, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurfalien Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 To Bills point, it's not about tech but about how poorly its applied. The world has gotten so fast that there isn't enough time to make it right. There is only time to make it competitive and profitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I'm not opposed to technology. I'm opposed to needlessly complex technology. A V8 with cylinder deactivation hooked up to a 10 speed trans is a perfect example of needlessly complex! Today's V8s need more and more gimmicks in order to make them "efficient." Why not ditch the V8 and work with something that is inherently more efficient to begin with? That's where the automakers are going, and it makes perfect sense. Hanging on to V8s for nostalgia's sake isn't going to cut it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurfalien Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Hanging on to V8s for nostalgia's sake isn't going to cut it. Oh yea it will. I'm hanging on to my moms Englebert Humperdincks 33 1/3s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 A V8 with cylinder deactivation hooked up to a 10 speed trans is a perfect example of needlessly complex! Today's V8s need more and more gimmicks in order to make them "efficient." Why not ditch the V8 and work with something that is inherently more efficient to begin with? That's where the automakers are going, and it makes perfect sense. Hanging on to V8s for nostalgia's sake isn't going to cut it. Agreed, but cutting weight would be more to the point across the board. The current Challenger, for example, is much heavier that its '70s namesake, in spite of all the ballyhooed implementation of high-strength steels, etc. Really tight engineering ought to be able to shave 1000 pounds out of it, or at LEAST a couple hundred less than the original. Less weight to drag around=less horsepower required to do it=less complexity needed to achieve power from a tiny engine=more robust product=longer lifespan=less cost to maintain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuzzed Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Three minor points...the B-52, which entered service in 1955, is expected to continue as an operational aircraft into the 2040s. Metal commercial aircraft have operational lifetimes determined by structural metal fatigue limits, and are usually on the order of 30 years. It's yet to be seen how long all-composite-structure airliners like the Boeing 777 will fly. Far as front-line fighters go, both America's F-22 and F-35, very complex and technology-dependent, are now pretty much universally regarded as being unfit for combat, out-performed easily by the much simpler Russian Mig 29 / 35....which is also MUCH more easily serviced in combat conditions. What a concept. A combat aircraft you can work on in combat conditions. The Soviets learned well from their experience in WWII. The Germans had far more sophisticated weaponry, but it was difficult to maintain in those combat conditions. The people in Washington didn't learn from history- our dalliances with multi-role-combat-aircraft were pretty much limited to the F4 Phantom and F111 Ardvark. Both were compromised; neither lived up to it's potential; neither was able to do it's intended jobS without major modifications during production along the way. Not minor mods for better performance, but such things as adding an internal gun to the Phantom to better it's intended use as a fighter. And the F-111, although looked upon as a naval aircraft, was not really suited for carrier use. And now, we have the F-35, which has a version for every branch but the Coast Guard. It costs zillions of dollars, and leaves much to be desired. Smartphones are great little toys, but as they get smaller and smaller, and are given so many more tasks, all those gazillions of tiny little, moving parts (our friends, the electrons) don't always flow as well as hoped with the heat and tighter tolerances ("Your results may vary"). The word "glitch" actually does have a technical definition. Any and all electronics behave that same way. The simpler, the better. But, all those electronics in today's cars are giving the buying public better performance, mileage, safety and security, so it's unlikely that they'll ever disappear. However- at some point, they will be incorporated into plug-and-play packages or modules that will be easily available and just as easy to replace by anyone with a modicum of technical skills: i.e., can you read instructions and use a screwdriver? Even those of us who have any kind of ability to work on cars were not born with those abilities. We watched, we read, we learned. They might have been far simpler way back when, but how many of us knew how to rebuild a carb before high school, or even for some time after? Most kids today have a better grip of how to deal with cantankerous electronics at a relatively young age- from hands-on experience- than previous generation's mechanical abilities at the same ages. And, those skills that they do have will be useful for servicing all those automotive electronic gizmos. If I ever hit Lotto, one of the cars that I will buy will be a Tesla. They are working on one that will have two 470 HP motors. Sure, it may be quiet, but it is the future. I'll also get a Hellcat Challenger, because there's nothing like a good old, pushrod V8. Edited January 14, 2015 by johnbuzzed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuzzed Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Oh yea it will. I'm hanging on to my moms Englebert Humperdincks 33 1/3s More natural sound from those analog recording methods. It's as nature intended! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurfalien Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Watch, in years to come we will find that analog was truly superior and will go back to it with a different twist of course. Nature is already the ultimate result of design, the best engineering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 The current Challenger, for example, is much heavier that its '70s namesake, in spite of all the ballyhooed implementation of high-strength steels, etc. Really tight engineering ought to be able to shave 1000 pounds out of it, or at LEAST a couple hundred less than the original. If that was possible, don't you think they would have done it? Manufacturers have even have gone to thinner glass in order to save an ounce or two. No more spare tire, save 40 pounds. They have cut all the weight they can possibly cut while still meeting safety standards. I severely doubt that the new Challenger is carrying around an extra half-ton of unnecessary weight due to sloppy engineering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) If that was possible, don't you think they would have done it? No. What's "possible" is rarely what's actually done. Feel free to believe that all car engineering departments are making the best, most efficient, most elegant designs "possible" if it makes you happy. I see stupid, barely competent "engineered" solutions every day. Just because someone has a shiny little degree and gets paid to do a job, that doesn't mean they do the job really really well. But part of the problem is that consumers have been trained to expect vehicles to be "safe" no matter how incompetently they're operated, and to protect the driver from his own poor driving. That translates into excessively heavy structures and the additional weight burden of multiple air bags. A Cirrus SR 22 is a 200 MPH, 4-passenger airplane. It weighs about 2300 pounds. It has extremely sophisticated onboard electronics including 2 10" flat screen multifunction displays, navigation, comm radios, GPS, storm-scope, AND A PARACHUTE TO LAND THE WHOLE AIRPLANE. Tell me why a car to take one probably overweight ass to work and back REALLY needs to weigh 3800 pounds. Edited January 14, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakshow12 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Today's biggest struggle with weight is safety and the bean counters PERIOD! People want steak but wanna pay for Bologna. Sacrifices are made in every industry every day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 But part of the problem is that consumers have been trained to expect vehicles to be "safe" no matter how incompetently they're operated, and to protect the driver from his own poor driving. That translates into excessively heavy structures and the additional weight burden of multiple air bags. But those safety standards are real. They exist. The manufacturers can't engineer a mass-market car without taking them into account. Their cars have to comply with all those regulations whether you like them or not. But I'm curious... where do see the 1,000 pounds of excess weight being cut out of the Challenger? Seriously... ONE THOUSAND pounds? Say they made you King of Mopar Engineering. Tell me specifically where a thousand pounds of "fat" can be cut from the Challenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 A Cirrus SR 22 is a 200 MPH, 4-passenger airplane. Does it have to meet federally mandated crash/safety/MPG standards? You're comparing apples and oranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Does it have to meet federally mandated crash/safety/MPG standards? You're comparing apples and oranges. The FAA has standards that just might be a little more stringent than anything the NHTSA / EPA / CAFE have come up with. Oh, and the airplane has to fly, too. Masses of weight COULD HAVE been engineered out of cars many years ago, but as usual, a knee-jerk expedient path was chosen, rather than rational long-term development goals that were attainable. And know-nothing government agencies were allowed to set arbitrary standards, in the "just-pass-a-law-to-make-it-so" SOP. Easier also to continue building heavy, steel battering rams than to take a more enlightened approach and try something different. And the lawyers would prefer lots of steel. It reminds them of boilerplate, and there are no "unproven" concepts to have to defend in court when Mommy stops on the Interstate, is crushed by a semi, and the husband sues the car company. But the world IS changing in a good way, in places. Some gutsy manufacturers are turning to composite materials as the price comes down and understanding of how to make composite structures "crash safe" in the car world increases. Less weight=more efficiency=smaller engines=same performance while burning far less fuel. Now, if there was just some way to get people to actually be competent and careful drivers, every day. Then you COULD build a sub-2500 pound steel car that would carry four. Edited January 15, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Another variable you may be glossing over is affordability. Yeah, manufacturers could go with carbon fiber or exotic alloys to save weight, but the bottom line is that the cars they build have to be affordable to the mass market. It's easy to design a $500,000 car that incorporates all sorts of super high-tech wizardy in it, but when you have to sell your cars to the public for $25 grand, it's a little harder to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) All it takes to do it is the desire. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-09/bmw-backed-researchers-closing-in-on-cheaper-carbon-fiber.html Ford was experimenting with soy-based composites in the 1930s. http://ushistory4you.hubpages.com/hub/Henry-Fords-Hemp-Car Germany has been building all-composite sport aircraft since 1957. Lotus was building composite-chassis cars in 1959 (the original Elite). It coulda been done CHEAPLY by now if anybody had really wanted to do it. Edited January 15, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disabled modeler Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 At least there starting to understand horsepower can equal mpg....a higher horsepower engine needs to work less hard to move the vehicle and less fuel....but there is a fine line between weight and horsepower too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 All it takes to do it is the desire. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-09/bmw-backed-researchers-closing-in-on-cheaper-carbon-fiber.html It's not the desire, it's the bottom line. Carbon fiber is currently cost-prohibitive to use in mass-market cars. If the price becomes realistic to use in Corollas and Focuses and Elantras, then it will be used... you can bet on it. Carbon fiber is the "magic bullet" as far as weight reduction, but as of today it's not cost-effective for mass-market vehicles. Again, manufacturers have to make cars at a price point that the majority of consumers will accept (and can afford), and that fact means that certain decisions have to be made. They can't sell very many $100,000 Chevies and Fords. If automotive engineers and designers were told they can do whatever they want, regardless of cost, then sure, they could do a lot. But in the real world, cost (consumer price) is the major factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapfight Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Yeah....a true muscle car needs a V-8....they will impress me when they can get over 400,000. miles from a 4 or 6 cyl. What is next?...front wheel drive only 1 ton pickups for the farmers to use with a 4 or 6 cyl?...yeah they will sell lots of those to the farmers that haul/tow heavy loads. Erm...there are lots of non-v8 engines that can go 400k + miles, I'm not sure what you are on about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseldawg142 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) ... Edited May 11, 2018 by dieseldawg142 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 It's not the desire, it's the bottom line. Carbon fiber is currently cost-prohibitive to use in mass-market cars. If the price becomes realistic to use in Corollas and Focuses and Elantras, then it will be used... you can bet on it. Carbon fiber is the "magic bullet" as far as weight reduction, but as of today it's not cost-effective for mass-market vehicles. Again, manufacturers have to make cars at a price point that the majority of consumers will accept (and can afford), and that fact means that certain decisions have to be made. They can't sell very many $100,000 Chevies and Fords. If automotive engineers and designers were told they can do whatever they want, regardless of cost, then sure, they could do a lot. But in the real world, cost (consumer price) is the major factor. See post #69, post-edit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) I don't personally care much if the majors quit making V8 engines. I know where to get all of 'em I'm ever likely to need...if I live to be 130. Far as unnecessary complication goes, the current Ford Escape has a 1.6 EcoBoost turbo that gets 10 horsepower more than the vastly simpler normally aspirated 2.5 liter V6. Fuel mileage is about the same in the real world. That little 1600cc turbo engine will be a high-revving, hot-running little screamer, beating its guts out before the 2.5 V6 has worked up a sweat. And it needs a very complex 6-speed automatic gearbox to keep it in its narrow torque band. All that extra complexity and reduced long-term life, just for 10 HP? Doesn't make any sense to me. Edited January 15, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakshow12 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Here's what I know about the Eco turds Ford is building. This is real world first hand info. It's not debatable and its not third part info. I had a 2011 f150 4x4 with a 5.0. My brother in law had the same truck with an ecoboost. We made the same trip on the same day at the same time. I averaged 3.5 mpg better than him. I bug him because he paid more to have that engine. We kept track over time and mine was consistently better. His was in shop constantly with sensors and turbo issues. Score 1 for 5.0. Jump ahead. I got a 14 f150 that was the same as the 11 for the most part, again with the 5.0. My brother in law also got a 14 same as his old one, again Eco boost. His dealer assured him the 14 was better... Round 2. We again loaded up families and went on a trip. Again I got better mileage and up to this point of ownership mine is better all around! His is suffering issues and he is not happy. So the Eco BLAH_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH is not all it's cracked up to be. Last year a couple dealers in my area switched to getting more v8s in stock because they get good mileage and are more reliable. Oh btw. If you read the fine fine print in the brochure of f150s where it states est mileage, when they tested the 5.0 it was ran at 100km/h and the Eco boost was ran at 77km/h. So it's creative marketing at its finest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace-Garageguy Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 But I'm curious... where do see the 1,000 pounds of excess weight being cut out of the Challenger? Seriously... ONE THOUSAND pounds? Say they made you King of Mopar Engineering. Tell me specifically where a thousand pounds of "fat" can be cut from the Challenger. Sorry. I missed that post. Taking 1000 pounds out of a 3800 pound Challenger ought to be theoretically possible when you take into consideration that a '68-'69 Barracuda is listed as 2899 pounds, wasn't really a "light" car, and was built entirely without benefit of CAD or high-strength lightweight steel. I'd dearly love to be "King of Mopar Engineering" to see if it could be done, at reasonable cost. Somehow, a little Corolla weighs 2800 pounds these days. In 1968, they weighed in at about 1550. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.