Technology Makes New Cars Too Expensive to Fix

Yay! Disposable cars! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 03:59 · Score: 5, Funny

We've got plenty of resources and landfills with tons of space. These are perfect. I hope they also get less than 1 mile to the gallon, because efficiency sucks! Yeah!

Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by Hogwash+McFly · 2004-04-19 04:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

Technology has pretty much made ordinary cars disposable nowadays anyway. My dad's friend works for quite a large Irish company that deal with, among other things, scrap. Recently they have purchased a scrapping machine worth tens of millions of pounds. It's almost cartoonesque - the crushed car cube goes in at one end and raw materials emerge from the other. Aside from the power used, it's a cyclic process with minimal wastage. The rubber, plastic, metal can be reused for whatever purpose necessary. It has to be economically viable if these companies are willing to lay out so much green for these 'car eaters'.

The typical 'movie bad guy hideout' junk yards will be a thing of the past in a short period. Cars won't be sitting around piled up ten to the dozen or in landfills, they're going to be snapped up by entities who want the materials.

It's also a sort of part payback to mother nature for some of the other bad shit we've been doing.

What with China et al manufacturing all the washing machines and stuff, and with prices rising (from forty pounds per ton to over a hundred, if i have been informed correctly) the demand will increase dramatically. Hell, a lot of manhole covers are disappearing around the country in what seems to be an attempt to cash in on the metal madness.

As far as the 'disposable car' goes, it all seems a bit of a gimmick, as current normal cars aren't exactly on the same level as toxic waste.

--
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by composer777 · 2004-04-19 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Setting aside the landfill situation for a moment. Why would you want to make things more difficult, more miserable, and at the same time consume more resources. This to me seems like a win, lose, lose, lose situation.
1. Automakers win.
2. Workers lose since they have to work harder.
3. The environment loeses since there is more junk being created.
4. More resources are consumed to make those cars, not to mention all the extra driving that is done. etc.

A friend of mine wondered how we would justify feeding people for free if technology replaced their jobs. My response is that in a sane society, you would simply weigh the cost of the gas that they would consume driving to work everyday, vs the output of a machine doing that job. Then you would look at the overall budget and realize that it would be cheaper just to let them do whatever they want and not come to work, than to make them burn up several gallons of gas (and other resources) a week driving their Ford Explorer to work, all so that they can be treated like a robot. There are a lot of jobs like that, jobs that aren't really needed, working in factories that are beyond obsolete, but are kept around to keep a lid on the violence that would surely ensue if half of all Americans were suddenly jobless. The problem with the current situation is that we are burning up a lot of resources to keep the illusion of market economics alive. We could just admit that it's all a sham, be done with it, and simplify things greatly, minimizing work, resource consumption, the whole ball of wax. The problem is, giving the little people all that free time would be dangerous to those in power. So, instead, the illusion must be maintained.
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by Lumpy · 2004-04-19 05:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Cars won't be sitting around piled up ten to the dozen or in landfills, they're going to be snapped up by entities who want the materials.

wow you are wrong.

those "scrap cars" are a goldmine for smart mechanics and car owners. those $3000.00 XENON HId headlamps can be bought from a junkyard out of a car that was in a nasty side impact or rear impact accident for $100-200 dollars. Computer for that Pontiac? $250.00 compared to $1500.00 at the dealer. how about simple stuff like the alarm keyfobs and electronic ID keys? the fealer quoted me $155.00 for a new key + alarm/entry keyfob. I was able to get a working keyfob + the secret proceedure to get it working at a local scrapyard for $15.00 and he was selling the key blanks for $10.00 each and had them cut at a local keyshop for $5.00

car scrapyards are worth much more as a parts source than as ground up scrap meatal, rubber and plastic.

In fact right now with the "down" economy.. the scrapyards with cars stacked up are making the most money and their business is booming as people are stretching their dollar every way they can.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by Pig+Hogger · 2004-04-19 05:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
This to me seems like a win, lose, lose, lose situation.
1. Automakers win.
2. Workers lose since they have to work harder.
3. The environment loeses since there is more junk being created.
4. More resources are consumed to make those cars, not to mention all the extra driving that is done. etc.
This is irrelevent.

The only thing that counts is that the CEO gets the fattest bonus and golden parachute, and, accessorly, that the company stock rises as high as possible.
Everything else is fiddlestick poppycock.
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by Hogwash+McFly · 2004-04-19 06:10 · Score: 3, Informative

But when you go and ask for those headlights, does the guy in the dungarees say 'Yeah, I'll just take off the ten cars that are on top of that one you want and then remove the headlights for you'? Or are the high value components already stripped as soon as the car comes in? Wouldn't it make more sense to gut a car of anything worthwhile to the junkyard owner - high value parts, rather than chuck it into a pile of other cars and sort it later? What I was trying to say was that technology has made it easier to fully dispose of cars, hence no particular need for 'disposable cars'. I wasn't trying to imply that this is an end to scrap yards as a whole.

You want your headlights. You pick em up cheap from a big pile of headlights. You win.

The companies interested in cheap raw materials buy everything else that is of no use to Joe Sixpack. They win

The scrap yard owner gets both your money and money from the company looking for cheap bulk scrap. He wins

Less junk piles up that people off the street don't want. Mother nature wins.

--
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by d34thm0nk3y · 2004-04-19 06:34 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, your parent does have a point . Metal prices are skyrocketing in the US right now. Something like 100 - 200% rise in prices over the last couple months. I wouldn't be so quick to to make the blanket statement that parting out cars will always make more than recycling for the basic metals. I work in the iron industry and we have been struggling to keep up with the inflating prices for stock steel.
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by UniverseIsADoughnut · 2004-04-19 06:39 · Score: 5, Informative

your a bit right. Typicaly auto salvage places are two sides. You'll have your Bubba's you pull it on one side, and Freds used auto parts on the other. Cars will come in to Bubba's. There if the car has no massive value, say it's a 67 chevy nova, good for parts but no modern stuff, it will go straight to the yard. Now say a 97 Ford Taurus comes in that got rear ended real bad. The will take it in, rip the engine out, many some other sub-componets, tranny seats, glass and so forth, since these are still very common cars. Those parts going over to Freds and people come in and buy them. Typical your local garage thats fixing a car. The rest of the car will go to the yard for U-pull it use. After a period of time if it's been stripped of most that was left over time by people, then they crush them. If there wasn't much after the first strip they will just crush them. Very few yard stack cars. Those are places that are just crushing. U-pull it places lay them out and keap them sorta by brand and type, usualy put them up on old rims so you can get under them. They have limited space, so they will crush the least useful ones as time goes buy. But if say its a classic, but all stripped, but has a good body they will keap those for people looking for project cars.

Like the poster said, cars are worth a lot in parts. Thats why you see Push Pull Drag in deals where they will give you 1000 bucks for a POS, it's worth it to them.

These places keap prices for repair down. If you need a big part for your car like an engine or tranny this is where it comes from, or a fender or hood. When a body shop or garage goes fixing your car they will always use these parts first unless they can't find them. Insurance company price out for these parts. You wouldn't want to pay for OEM fenders or a brand new engine. Even if they say they are new it is very unlikely they are new.

The reality of it is, if you bought a brand new car, or maybe a year old model cheap, then took it to a salvage yard, they could probably turn around and turn a profit on parting it out.

The giant car eaters are good for stuff that is crap. But those programs also raise the cost of used parts for your car. They are mainly pushed because the car companies get emmissions credits for getting old clunkers destroyed. Not a bad thing, just has it's serious draw backs. Since if your a car collector it will be come very hard to find that car you always wanted or parts for it.

It should be noted that in some places in Europe now car companies have to set up a EOL plan for the car that includes it's disposal, thats why those scredders are coming into play.
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by Suidae · 2004-04-19 07:28 · Score: 1

Around here cars first go to a salvage yard where the employees strip the high value parts. The vehicles are then cleaned of fluids and toxic stuff and welded up on stands (typically old steel rims) and placed in the yard where customers can pull their own parts. After a certain amount of time (varies depending on the car) the vehicles are pulled from the yard and recycled for scrap.

Very little is wasted, and lots of businesses put a lot of effort into making the process as cost efficent as possible.
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by Blimey85 · 2004-04-19 07:59 · Score: 1

Cars won't be sitting around piled up ten to the dozen or in landfills
Huh? Ten to the dozen? What is this, the metric system?

--
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by Blimey85 · 2004-04-19 08:04 · Score: 1

Insurance company price out for these parts.
Say what? If I get into a wreck and need body parts, they damn well better be brand spanking new factory parts. Nowhere does it say anything about used parts on my insurance papers. It says that factory parts will be used unless unavailable, in which case after market (new) parts will be used.
I wouldn't get insurance that plans on putting used parts on my car. I've worked at a dealer and the body shop never used anything but new parts on insurance work. If the customer asked for used parts to cut down on costs, that was always an option, but never on insurance work.

--
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by becker · 2004-04-19 08:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

You miss an important point: idle people consume more resources.

I work long hours, and don't have time to spend money. If I had more free time, I would use the time on expensive (both in $ and natural resources) hobbies.
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by misleb · 2004-04-19 09:28 · Score: 1

>You miss an important point: idle people consume more resources.
How do you figure this?
I work long hours, and don't have time to spend money. If I had more free time, I would use the time on expensive (both in $ and natural resources) hobbies.
Unless you were dragracing or something like that, I doubt it. Presumably you wouldn't be making that much money if you were idle. Besides, I don't think most people have that much money to burn. A good portion of the American population is in massive debt.
I suspect that simple boredom would become a problem if more people were idle. Personally, if I didn't have a job I would be incredibly bored all day. Not to mention that I wouldn't have learned half of what I know about computer without my job.
-matthew

--
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by OpenSourceOfAllEvil · 2004-04-19 10:44 · Score: 1

Saving $2000 on a repair by going to a junkyard seems very attractive. A fair mechanic will inform you of this and give you the expected life of the replacement, most of his income is from labor. An official dealership's repair shop will not even offer this option, their money is in labor and the high markup of original parts they are obligated to use exclusively. At best they will suggest you try a junkyard yourself but will not offer to do it for you.

So, if the customer is savvy and bold enough they will go to the junkyard and pay 1/4 or less of what the dealer would have charged. But wait, Let's say the customer just goes to the dealer because out of habit because they've done all his required warranty service or is simply facing a high labor charge on engine or tranny replacement... He's faced with a $2000 bill and a car no longer under warranty to cover it. What he does depends on what he paid for the car. If it's a $40K+ car he lumps it. If it's and $20K or under economy car...he simply trades it in and leases a new one.

This is something my mechanic explained to me when I noticed most of his repair bays were empty. "It simply isn't worth it to most people to repair their used car when they can lease a brand new one so cheap. It doesn't make sense to spend the money. They take the repair money and get a new car."

Only the minority that prefer to keep their car are going to take advantage of smart shopping, the rest simply regard it as disposable.
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by prr56 · 2004-04-19 10:56 · Score: 1

As a hot rodder, I can tell you that 67 Nova is worth a lot more than that piece of shit Tortus. A body shell alone is worth 1500-3500 dollars depending on body shape and there are plenty of folks out there who want them. Also as an ex-mechanic, these cars of today are disposable. Very few will ever reach the collectablity of earlier cars(1) They all look the same, no distinguishing characteristics(2)As posted above, you can't "personalize" or tinker with these cars. They either run or don't
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by d34thm0nk3y · 2004-04-19 12:11 · Score: 1

It's hard to tell. Bush stopped the tariff against steel interest lobbying I think. China also started buying shitloads of it which made it relatively scarce(hence more $$). If I had money invested in steel like the guy further down the thread I would think about selling it pretty soon. Steel prices are finally starting to level off (hopefully).
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by UniverseIsADoughnut · 2004-04-19 12:40 · Score: 1

I agree, i was saying it in the sense that Fred is not going to be interested in anything from it. It doesn't have common new parts they regularly go through. That car would be set asside for those looking for one. Really it was the first car that popped in my mind, don't know what, well Nova that is, i was thinkin 70s at first, but realized those should be crushed no question (sorry, 70s, and 80s where dark ages to me, and i'm not a GM fan asside from a few, like Chevy II novas). But from a shear part value you will probably get much more from a wrecked taurus then a well used nova.

Far as collecting, I agree to a point. But really we just don't know at this point. I don't see FWDs and such becoming collectable. But really it's all taste driven. I'm not down with many cars post 1965ish. There are a few cars that pop in my mind as collectable, like a lincoln mark VIII, that was a nice car for it's time and still looks impressive 12 years after they came out.

Far as looking the same, sorta. Like some companies live on dull, like Honda, and japanesse in general. Ford, GM, and Dodge have done a decent job of putting otu some interesting cars lately.

You can tweak them plenty, maybe not the same tweaking, but hey, their complexity has their gains, I wouldn't want to be stuck in 1960s tech. That and I work on hybrids for a living, so staying in the 60s would be bad. I can't say you are limited though. People make a focus into a RWD v8 beast with no problem, mustangs and vettes still have plenty of aftermarket. It all depends what you are into. If you love carburators, well then sure, times have changed, but people like myself don't see their death as a bad thing. Things arn't bad now, just differant. There are also lots of throw away cars. Kia, Hyundi, Dawoo etc. and crap models from companies. Unfortently that problem is driven by people thinking they need a new car, so they buy a new cheap POS instead of buying a good solid low mileage used car for less. I spent less on my focus then i would to buy a new kia. Hell of a lot better car. But so many refuse to buy a used one.
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by Grishnakh · 2004-04-19 13:45 · Score: 1

You must be assuming that you're not at fault for the accident. If it is your fault (and many times if it isn't), your insurance company will hike your rates. If it's a minor accident, it's usually worth it to avoid the insurance and fix it yourself. In this case, it definitely pays to buy used parts.
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by fred911 · 2004-04-19 16:28 · Score: 1

"Like the poster said, cars are worth a lot in parts. Thats why you see Push Pull Drag in deals where they will give you 1000 bucks for a POS, it's worth it to them."

Only if they've increased the retail selling price by X is your sled worth X to a dealer in a retail sale. Your trade is worthless on the retail side. The dealer might make a hundred or so on the liquidation of your iron but mostly expenses eat up any profit in trading your tired old wheels. Push, pull or tow sales are as good a deal as a rebate on a new car.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:Yay! Disposable cars! by Beliskner · 2004-04-25 08:50 · Score: 1

The problem with the current situation is that we are burning up a lot of resources to keep the illusion of market economics alive
These are dangerous truths old friend. I would suggest a slight correction, however. Instead of "keep the illusion of market economics alive" it would be "keep the illusion of meritocracy (work in exchange for prosperiy) alive)

--
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?

my 84 vw rabbit... by hyperstation · 2004-04-19 04:01 · Score: 4, Funny

goes faster than your new car, handles better, has a real transmission, and is easy and cheap to work on...

power steering is for pussies.

Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by Xzzy · 2004-04-19 04:12 · Score: 4, Funny

my '66 vw bug

goes slower than your 84 rabbit, handles worse, has a real transmission, and is even easier and cheaper to work on.

It's also exempt from emissions checks.

Take these two posts, and I think the moral here is that the best option is to own the oldest car you can get your hands on.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by hyperstation · 2004-04-19 04:14 · Score: 1

It's also exempt from emissions checks.

equally cool in my book :)....however we don't have emissions checks where i live (but i understand that mass does and i may move to boston sometime soon).
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by swordboy · 2004-04-19 04:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Your post is modded as funny but here's what I see happening:

Oil will become too expensive for use in automobiles. Now, companies like GM have faked electric vehicle efforts only to revert back to good ole oil. Because of the Big Company reluctance to supply EVs en masse, clever companies will eventually step in and supply bolt-in EV retrofit kits and you'll be able to plug in that 84 Rabbit instead of gassing it up.

Eventually, the BigMotorCos will have to supply EVs. The EV1 was great in the respect that it required very little maintenance (no oil changes, air filters, spark plugs, head gaskets, transmission, etc). But how can GM make money when owners can rebuild the drivetrain so easily?

--

Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by MasterSLATE · 2004-04-19 04:27 · Score: 1

My '84 RX-7 GSL-SE will destroy your rabbit. :) Rotary engines + 5 speed transmission = rockin.

--

[sig]www.masterslate.org[/sig]
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by 74nova · 2004-04-19 04:27 · Score: 1

the moral here is that the best option is to own the oldest car you can get your hands on.
sweet... bought my 63 galaxie in almost perfect shape for like $800. i think that makes me 3 years cooler than you! it goes slower than your 66 bug, handles worse(4500lbs will do that to you), has a real transmission, and is probably just as easy and cheap to work on. emissions exempt as well, but i have plans for a custom megasquirt setup. lotsa old licolns around with injection setups.

--
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by hyperstation · 2004-04-19 04:29 · Score: 1

when that day comes, maybe i'll do this.

Oil will become too expensive for use in automobiles.

...what about synthetics? but obviously if oil is too expensive to put in cars, gasoline will be out of the question too...
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by 74nova · 2004-04-19 04:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

why not alcohol fuel and synthetic lubricants?

--
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by ivan256 · 2004-04-19 04:32 · Score: 1

You're joking, right?

Assuming your little Big Company conspiracy theory is correct, auto-makers have too much lobbying pull to allow EV retrofitting kits for older cars to be legal.

But how can GM make money when owners can rebuild the drivetrain so easily?

So your theory is that car companies make their cars difficult to fix in order to make money on service. Explain to me, then, the push towards the leasing model, where most drivers of new vehicles get a new car before the warranty term ends? Most off-lease vehicles end up on the auction block, and the manufacturer and dealership have already made their money off of them. Depending on which company you're talking about, car companies make their money either on margin, or financing. Cars are becoming disposable, and that doesn't support service revenue.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by shfted! · 2004-04-19 04:38 · Score: 1

My 1986 Ford Escort still easily goes 160 km/h (100 mph) in third gear with winter tires on. Granted, I have power-assist steering, and that makes all the difference to a car with a 1.6L 100 hp engine and 4 speed manual transmission.

--
He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by duffbeer703 · 2004-04-19 04:46 · Score: 1

Conspiracy theories sound great.

Automakers push leases to the dumb folks who "need" a new car, yet lack the cash. That's why you see middle class college students driving BMW's and 40k/year workers driving a Lexus or a Civic with $10k of aftermarket shit bolted on.

They make huge profit margins on these dolts, who often miss payments and end up paying 16%+ interest rates.

Depending on the region, however, leasing only represents about 30-40% of the new car market. Even then, customers are drawn into dealerships by the promise of low, low monthly payments.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by chammel · 2004-04-19 04:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

It also pollutes the air more than any Hummer in production.

--
Neutrons are slippery little rascals, they can fool you. They can bounce and show up around corners you don't expect.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by oyenstikker · 2004-04-19 04:54 · Score: 1

Your speedometer easily reads 100mph. You're off by 10mph by that point.

--
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by shfted! · 2004-04-19 05:06 · Score: 1

Why do you say that? The tread wear I've had is about 2 mm so far, that's a loss of less than 1%.

--
He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by ValourX · 2004-04-19 05:13 · Score: 1

What a pleasant fantasy you have, where somehow oil will be more precious and expensive than electricity. There will be an electricity crisis long before there will be another oil crisis... just wait for the summer when the rolling blackouts come back to make up for shortages. Only next time it happens, it might not be isolated to California. Complicate the matter by making cars completely electric and you won't be able to afford to post on Slashdot anymore because you can't afford the electricity.
-Jem
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by theophilosophilus · 2004-04-19 05:15 · Score: 1

Oil will become too expensive for use in automobiles. Now, companies like GM have faked electric vehicle efforts only to revert back to good ole oil. Because of the Big Company reluctance to supply EVs en masse, clever companies will eventually step in and supply bolt-in EV retrofit kits and you'll be able to plug in that 84 Rabbit instead of gassing it up. Eventually, the BigMotorCos will have to supply EVs. The EV1 was great in the respect that it required very little maintenance (no oil changes, air filters, spark plugs, head gaskets, transmission, etc).

I have trouble jumping on the EV bandwagon because I'm not sure its as environmentally friendly as we'd like to believe. Where do you think the majority of your electricity comes from?

EVs may make sense if more environmentally friendly power sources were utilized but even those have downsides. Hydro-electric = dams = disruption of natural habitat. Solar = pollution in production of solar cells. I'm not sure about any downsides with wind but in north western Iowa and southern Minnisota complaints have ranged from the asthetic nature of the turbines to their affect on the avian population (some liberal senator doesn't like them because hes affraid it'll kill birds).

--
Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-19 05:20 · Score: 1

My '84 RX-7 GSL-SE will destroy your rabbit. :) Rotary engines + 5 speed transmission = rockin.

My '86 RX-7 GXL can beat up your '84 RX-7 and only has 45K miles :)

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by AK+Marc · 2004-04-19 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

It also pollutes the air more than any Hummer in production.

If the Hummers just barely meet federal standards, then no. I've had numerous '80s cars that tested to be well within the federal guidelines for new cars. Just because it is old does not mean that it is dirty.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by NorthDude · 2004-04-19 05:26 · Score: 1

If you need power steering when you are getting laid, I sure don't want to see what the girl looks like...

--

I'd rather be sailing...
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by tzanger · 2004-04-19 05:33 · Score: 1

Actually I think solar energy is far more efficient if you use guided reflectors (mirrors) and aim the sunlight at a water column, turning it into steam.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by micromoog · 2004-04-19 05:39 · Score: 5, Funny

why not alcohol fuel and synthetic lubricants?
Sounds like my last date. ZING!
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by micromoog · 2004-04-19 05:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Electricity has a natural price cap: about where personal power generation becomes feasible. I can't drill for oil in my yard; I can install solar panels on my roof (for enough money).
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by operagost · 2004-04-19 05:47 · Score: 4, Funny

Yup, I'm sure your 85 HP engine is faster than anything out there. I also agree that the catlike handling of P155 R13 tires is greatly underrated!

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by ahfoo · 2004-04-19 05:50 · Score: 1

Indeed, my '79 Celica just tested in at 0.00 for CO after I put in a new long block. I asked the guy at the smog station how that could be possible, he said it wasn't really zero, it was just too low to detect. Not bad. Gotta do something about that rust though.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by blitziod · 2004-04-19 05:50 · Score: 1

if i owned a 74 aussie falcon..i would have all the abov advantages AND get laid a lot more.

--
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by Ryan+Amos · 2004-04-19 05:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

You forget the most profitable part of leasing; after getting some dope to make 3 years of payments on it, the dealership still owns it and can sell it for about half of the MSRP. Also, most leases have mileage limits, usually around 30,000 miles a year. If you go over, they charge you for that too.

Still, leases aren't all bad. If you own your own business, you can lease a car as a business expense (up to something absurd like a $50,000 car) and it's a total tax write-off. That way you basically get a new car every three years and it doesn't cost you much at all. That way you don't have to worry about expensive maintenance; as anything really expensive (read: engine block, computers, drivetrain) will usually be covered under warranty. But the general idea here is that paying a little more for a lease is better than paying 33.5% to the IRS.

(just FYI; most of those "low, low monthly payments" are 5 year leases/loans, which are just stupid. You don't want to be still paying for the car after it breaks. 2 or 3 year leases/loans are where it's at)
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by blitziod · 2004-04-19 05:55 · Score: 1

car companies make money selling cars AND parts. Car dealerships( not owned by automakers BUT in partnership with them) make much more from parts and service than from car sales.

--
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by zsz2k · 2004-04-19 06:22 · Score: 1

...and in 9/10 hard collisions between your rabbit and my A4, I will walk and you won't.

Everything has its price.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by the_mad_poster · 2004-04-19 06:29 · Score: 1

...usually around 30,000 miles a year.

Mmmm... no. Typical lease mileage limits are either 12k or 15k a year. If things REALLY REALLY REALLY go your way, you MIGHT be able to pull out a 17k a year lease, but that's not likely.

The 12k a year lease is typical as it leaves most people paying for around 1500 to 3000 miles "extra" per year.

The only way you'll ever see me with a lease is if it's a car that's almost certainly not going to depreciate beyond it's buy amount when the lease ends. That way, I can just buy the car and I might actually have a vehicle that's worth more than what I have left to pay on it. This works for things like Hondas and BMWs, but even that's really iffy.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by hyperstation · 2004-04-19 06:38 · Score: 1

you may very well be right! i could always set up a roll cage tho....

think i'd be safer in the A1-A2's tho, than say....other similarly sized cars?
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by duffbeer703 · 2004-04-19 06:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

As far as I'm concerned, if you cannot pay for a car in three years, you don't need to own it.

I was talking to a buddy of mine who got laid off and ended up selling cars for a short time. He never ceased to be shocked by idiots with good credit making $30k/yr working retail buying $35k SUVs with 6 year loans!

By the time they finished buying accessories and ripoff extended warranties, these people could have bought a more reasonable car new with the same payment and a 4 year loan!

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-19 06:51 · Score: 1
I have trouble jumping on the EV bandwagon because I'm not sure its as environmentally friendly as we'd like to believe. Where do you think the majority of your electricity comes from?
- What suprises me is that people give no concern to the hundreds or thousands of pounds of toxic chemical EVs require in their batteries, and the limited lifetime of these batteries.
  
  Imagine needing to dispose of 1000 pounds of lead every five years. How the @#$%^ is that good for the environment?
- And of course you also get to go from:
  chemical energy=>meechanical energy=>electrical energy=>long distance transmission=>voltage conversion=>chemical energy=>electrical energy=>mechanical energy
  instead of simply going from chemical energy to mechanical energy.
- And then of course there's the problem that batteries work like total shit in cold climates.
- And then there are also energy density problems with electric vehicles. There are no battery powered rockets for a reason. Weight is the enemy when you're building a vehicle. It kills acceleration, braking, handling, fuel efficiency, etc.
IMO, the choice is between clean-fuel ICE's and fuel-cell powered vehicles.
--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by cdrguru · 2004-04-19 06:52 · Score: 1

Hey, I think gas became too high priced when it reached $1.00 a gallon. I remember driving endlessly and seeing gas prices between 29.9 and 33.9 (cents per gallon) and that is where it is supposed to be.

This $2.00 a gallon stuff is absurd.

Soon as they come up with an electric car that can go more than about 100 miles on a 20 hour charge, I'm all set. Oh, and I wouldn't like to replace that $10,000 battery more than once every five years or so.

I think we have a ways to go on that. And, I think we'll have 6-hour laptop batteries long before practical car batteries. The big battle now is to have a 1-year-old laptop that can play a DVD all the way through.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by rainman_bc · 2004-04-19 06:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

Here in BC, Canada, we had someone with a generator running off a waterwheel in the stream in his back yard. He was told that due to provincial regulations he wasn't allowed to produce hiw own electricity through Hydroelectric means. See, it's not just Americans that have anal regulatory bodies :)

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by codifus · 2004-04-19 06:57 · Score: 1

And of course that is the reason we buy cars . . .to crash. While it is a nice thing that cars have gotten safer, we as a society always look for the quick fix, the marketable entity etc. Everybody wants an airgbag but they can't bother to put on their seat belts. Rtaher than learn to avoid the accident, they'd rather buy the safer car. Everyone should buy a Hummer, then.

CD
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-19 07:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Yup, I'm sure your 85 HP engine is faster than anything out there. I also agree that the catlike handling of P155 R13 tires is greatly underrated!

Ever hear of something called power to weight ratio?

You don't need giagantic tires and 300HP, when your car isn't a bloated, heavy pig (like the new GTO for example).

I've seen a VW Rabbit tear it up at the autocross, and it was really cool to watch this old guy in his beat-up rabbit hang with WRX's and Evo's. Sure, they would have ate him up in a straight line, but it was like watching Bruce Lee beat up Mike Tyson.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by corinath · 2004-04-19 07:19 · Score: 1

Speaking specifically abotu the old VW Bugs, they used an air cooled engine with absolutely no emissions controls. It is not really feasible with an air cooled engine to control the operating temperature precisely enough to prevent the formation of the more hazardous polutants, specifically the various oxides of nitrogen, which are a big contributing factor to acid rain. These compounds form more readily at higher combustion temperatures. We deal with them today by limiting the combustion temp through the use of an EGR valve, and by adjusting water flow through the engine. Along with temerature control, all exhaust fumes are passed through a catalytic converter, which converts CO and NOx compounds in to more friendly things.

Given that a modern Hummer has all of these polution control features which an old VW Bug can never have, the Hummer is a much cleaner vehicle. Now that is not to say that it the cleanest one out there, but almost anything is cleaner than an old Bug. Not to mention that the Hummer is a far safer vehicle in which to travel, which certainly makes my interest in one go up.

--
Hockey - Canada's gift to the world
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-19 07:35 · Score: 1

...and in 9/10 hard collisions between your rabbit and my A4, I will walk and you won't.

And what about collisions between your car and a Hummer?

The only thing attitudes like your do is contribute to the current "arms race" out there on the road where people buy bigger and bigger vehicles so they can "feel safe", knowing that when they are unable to aviod an accident using their vehicle's poor handling they'll crush the other guy like a bug.

While it's true that my 2600 pound sportscar isn't going to fare so well in a collision with a stolen army tank, I'll be able to avoid the accident in the first place.

So while you go barreling into that pile-up ahead, I'll be able to drive away.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by Kaduco · 2004-04-19 07:52 · Score: 1

Well, temperature, for one thing. I've been in Brazil where they use alcohol (or at least fuel of which a high percentage is alcohol). Once you get below about 50 F, the car just won't start. One local gas station in MA tried to use higher than legal percentages of alcohol in the gas, and wondered why they were inspected. Most of their regular users' cars wouldn't start on a cold winter morning (~20 F).
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by 4of12 · 2004-04-19 08:00 · Score: 1

Even then, customers are drawn into dealerships by the promise of low, low monthly payments.

Which might account for the 40% rate of upside down car loans, where the loan balance exceeds the market value.

I maintain my cars and try to drive them into the ground, except for the time one of `em got totalled. It was tough getting much of a settlement from the insurance company on a Honda Civic with 170k miles, but I really meant to drive that up to 300k miles or so when major engine or transmission work might be required.

The pickup truck might have rust holes in the body, but it's got 265k miles on it and still works fine.

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by Blimey85 · 2004-04-19 08:12 · Score: 1

goes faster than your new car
That is a bold statement. Your VW goes faster than my 2002 Camaro? I think not. But maybe... do I get to use my NOS for this race?

--
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by 74nova · 2004-04-19 08:19 · Score: 1

interesting... would this be a problem with engines designed for running on alcohol?

--
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by bechthros · 2004-04-19 08:29 · Score: 1

The Ford F-150's and other F-trucks are about the only thing Ford does that doesn't suck. Sturdy, quality, dependable... then again they haven't really changed the design in decades, think that has something to do with it?

--
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by hyperstation · 2004-04-19 08:33 · Score: 1

interesting, but i don't think so. i think that our cars are both equally low-tech. mine does have a CIS setup, but it's not electronic...
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by AK+Marc · 2004-04-19 08:42 · Score: 1

Given that a modern Hummer has all of these polution control features which an old VW Bug can never have, the Hummer is a much cleaner vehicle.

So how about an aircooled Porsche 911? They made those until about 1995. Would you assert that they are necessarilly pollute more than any other vehicles that were manufactured in 1995? How about comparing the 911 to the vehicles from the '80s that were watercooled?

This sounds like an "it is newer so it must be better" argument. There has been talk about the evil 2-stroke engines recently. There was a contest for the cleanest snowmobiles recently. There were a lot of 4-stroke entrants that were based off clean 4-stroke production engines. But the winner was a 2-stroke that was cleaner than all the 4-stroke engines.

An aircooled Bug in good condition will put out less pollutants than a Hummer in poor condition. An aircooled Bug in good condition will not be significantly different in emissions than a Hummer in good conditions.

Of course, I'm assuming that by "Hummer" you are referring to the H2, which is what many people mean now. If you are referring to the original Hummer, then you may want to look into the particulate matter dumped out by diesel (last I checked, the only way you could get an original). Not to mention that directly comparing the emissinos of a diesel engine to a gasonline engine will not give good results. Sure, the acid rain is a little less, but the carcinogenic particulate matter is way above that of gasoline.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by Buran · 2004-04-19 08:53 · Score: 1

You haven't seen the vanagon with the WRX engine in it yet. ;)

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by The+Human+Cow · 2004-04-19 09:02 · Score: 1

My '86 Toyota Pickup

Goes 80 on the interstate if you don't mind shaking a lot, has a turning radius of approximately 7 feet, and has plants growing in the bed.

It's also the coolest car on earth. Especially with spinning hubcaps. :D

--
The Human Cow - bringing you scrumtrelescence since 1995
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by oyenstikker · 2004-04-19 09:31 · Score: 1

Speedometers are diliberately designed to read high, and increasingly higher at higher speeds. That way, if it gets a bit off, you can't go back to the manufacturer and complain that it was reading low when you got a ticket.

--
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by shfted! · 2004-04-19 09:34 · Score: 1

Guess it's time to start timing myself then ;)

--
He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by Sci_Fox · 2004-04-19 10:03 · Score: 1

My 1957 Morris Minor Saloon.

Does not move unless pushed, steers well, has transmission, gearbox and engine (latter currently on garage floor), no seats, floor pan, or brakes. Exempt from road-tax, highly customisable. Origional A-series engine should give in the 40-45mpg range. The later A-series 1.3 should give only about 35mpg, but those are the penalties when you're crazy enough to want to do over 75mph.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by shiftless · 2004-04-19 11:06 · Score: 1

Even with your "power to weight ratio", VW rabbits are SLOW. And that "bloated, heavy pig" GTO would rip up that rabbit five ways from Sunday. Let's not forget which one would win in a head on collision..
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by istewart · 2004-04-19 11:09 · Score: 1

My grandfather has a 1974 Volkswagen Westfailia campervan that he bought, fully intact, from a junkyard. When he finally got around to trying to fix it, the mechanic he took it to deduced that the easiest way to make it run was to remove the emissions equipment entirely. Now, at the time, 1974 vehicles were not yet exempt from California smog regulations.

The mechanic was able to make that damnable dual-carbureted, "inefficient," junkyard-salvage Volkswagen air-cooled engine pass smog without any smog equipment.

Make of it what you will, especially considering the poster below accusing Hummers of barely passing federal emissions requirements.

(...and the fact that the Volkswagen Bus is a far more cargo and passenger space-efficient vehicle than any commodity-built Detroit SUV ever built, but that's a debate for another day.)
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by Kaduco · 2004-04-19 11:19 · Score: 1

Admittedly most of the brazilian engines were hybrids, for running either alcohol or gasoline. However even those that were strictly alcohol had issues starting in the winter.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by 74nova · 2004-04-19 11:29 · Score: 1

thats really interesting. any idea why?

--
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by DissidentHere · 2004-04-19 11:32 · Score: 1

Take these two posts, and I think the moral here is that best option is to own whatever German car you can get your hands on.

Seriously, the Germans make some of the highest quality cars around - VW, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, some of the highest quality (and fun!) vehicles available.

yes, ... I shamelessly enjoy my BMW. My first one was 230K+ miles before she needed work I couldn't justify getting done (tranny). Sold her to someone who likes to work on cars and she's running still today. I once saw one over 350K miles! Try getting that out of Dodge.

--
"None of us are as dumb as all of us." - meeting mantra
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by rhuntley12 · 2004-04-19 14:50 · Score: 1

My 85 BMW gets 40mpg and puts out less emissions then both my parents cars.(96 Buick lesabre, and some newer car I don't know what it is) Cost me $1800 plus about $400 to fix interior, and I can still smoke most of those lame ass rice rockets.
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by Technician · 2004-04-19 17:52 · Score: 1

I can also dump electric heat and go to gas, propane, wood, wood pellet, etc. Keeping the lights on is a small amount of the electric bill. Power heating & cooling appliances take the lion share. A standard fridge is about $1000 for a good one. An effecient frige for use on solar cells is about $8000. Look them up. Effecient appliances exist. We don't change the fridge or AC to an effecient one, but we do change the low wattage stuff like light bulbs. As electric rates climb, then in new construction, insulation and effeciency become more important even thought the initial cost is much higher.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:my 84 vw rabbit... by corinath · 2004-04-20 07:20 · Score: 1

My appologies, I was not aware that the Porsche was air-cooled. I do know that temperature control is far easier to achieve in a water cooled engine.

As for the hummer, I always think of the original, I do not like the H2 at all.

I do not necessarily believe that newer is always better. I know it is possible to tune a carburator to run as clean as modern EFI systems, its just harder.

As for the Bug, it will pollute more, or at least it will spew things that are worse, than the hummer because it lacks a catalytic converter to remove the CO and NOx from the exhaust.

As for comparing 2- and 4-stroke engines, people tend to think that 2-stroke is not as clean because in a typical 2-stroke you burn a lot of oil as well, but people neglect to consider the fact that all 4-strokes burn oil as well. In fact most auto manufacturers consider one quart of oil per 1000 miles to be perfectly fine. Besides, a 2-stroke is more efficient in terms of power output as you generate power with every stroke.

--
Hockey - Canada's gift to the world

Don't change jobs yet......... by MrIrwin · 2004-04-19 04:01 · Score: 4, Funny

Before long people will be sending thier cars to India to get them fixed ;-)

--

And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)

Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by jmichaelg · 2004-04-19 04:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

Though you were joking, these kinds of jobs are exactly the kind of job that won't get outsourced. A good friend of mine owns a plumbing business and he's done very well. Like any business, if you're smart and diligent, you can do well.
The trick is to avoid industries that are easily shipped offshore. This morning's paper had an article about drug testing going overseas because it's cheaper. At an Apple's developer's conference years ago, I saw a presentation by a radiologist that involved shipping x-rays over an ISDN line. That technology has made it possible to ship the radiologist's job overseas as well.
It's tough to squeeze a mechanic or a plumber through a data pipe, no matter how fat the pipe.
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by MrIrwin · 2004-04-19 04:32 · Score: 1

Joking apart, I realise this. Would you believe if I told you I would like to take up lanscape garding or run a plant nursery/garden shop!

--
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by schtum · 2004-04-19 04:34 · Score: 5, Funny

It's tough to squeeze a mechanic or a plumber through a data pipe, no matter how fat the pipe.

Tell that to Nintendo!
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by Doubting+Thomas · 2004-04-19 04:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's kind of sad, really. It didn't start out that way. Once upon a time, I worked with folks who were investigating this sort of software. At the time, they thought they were helping out rural people by giving them access to specialist that would never deign to live in their communities.

Instead, we're just giving them cheaper access to people with the same degree of training, and magnifying our trade deficit in the process.

--
Just because it works, doesn't mean it isn't broken.
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by InThane · 2004-04-19 04:48 · Score: 1

It's tough to squeeze a mechanic or a plumber through a data pipe, no matter how fat the pipe.

That's what telerobotics is all about. Having the guy in $COUNTRY fix your car by remote control.

--
InThane
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by Absurd+Being · 2004-04-19 04:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

You ever play FPS's? Picture the lag from the FPS while you're doing an intensive procedure like car repair or surgery, and imagine 300-400ms lag on the operation. Not a very cleanly done procedure. So no outsourcing yet, it has to be on roughly the same continent. Plus the robotics won't respond perfectly as a human hand does, the human operating the machine doesn't get tactile feedback, etc.

--
Karma: Excellent^(-t/Tau), Tau=Wittiness/Trollishness
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by laigle · 2004-04-19 05:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

The major issue with high-tech components in cars is they can't be repaired, only replaced. If your transmission breaks, a low pay tech can figure that out and make the appropriate repairs, or get new parts then send the current ones off for rebuilding.

If your ABS computer breaks, you need a new ABS computer and the old one is scrap. Not really hard to diagnose because of the onboard computer diangostics, not hard to fix. But it is expensive as hell. It leads to a market in designing interfaces for the onboard diagnostic computers, but that's an outsourced job assuming an American company is even making the interface to begin with.
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by gi-tux · 2004-04-19 05:20 · Score: 1

When all the other jobs get shipped overseas, being a plumber isn't going to help your friend. After all, he isn't going to work for free (and continue doing very well). And if no one else is working, then no one else is going to have money to pay him. At that point in time, he like the rest of us will be living in a third world country. We will be the people that others look down their noses at and the ones in need of assistance from others who are technologically savey.

The same goes for most jobs. Once the majority of folks aren't working, then there won't be such a need for medical professionals as we won't be able to afford them. There won't be such a need for lawyers, because there will be no need to sue anyone with no means of paying and there certainly won't be ex-employees breaking non-compete clauses in employment contracts.

And a that point in time, we can even get some governmental reform. After all, if no one is working there won't be tax dollars to pay all the high salaries to the professional politicians. They won't work for peanuts, they aren't really that concerned with serving their country. Then we might get a few people serving in office that can actually turn the country around and return it to what it has been in the past.

--
I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by joshmccormack · 2004-04-19 05:20 · Score: 1

If the difference in the cost of repairs was significant enough I could see people using a loner to wait a month to get their car back.

May seem insane, the idea of shipping a car back and forth, but why not? Or how about trading in a car? You have a car that needs repair, they offer you a comparable one for $2000 and a trade in, ship that one to India to be fixed, etc.

Have you ever seen where manhole covers are made? Lots are made in India. I've seen things on The Discovery Channel about Korean companies buying raw scrap metal, or felled trees with branches and leaves still attached and shipping them off to be worked on. I could see it happen.
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by eric76 · 2004-04-19 05:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Air conditioning can be quite lucrative, too. I know a former IBM engineer who took early retirement and now owns his own air conditioning business. He appears to be doing much better in it than he ever did as an IBM engineer.
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by donbrock · 2004-04-19 05:35 · Score: 1

>It's tough to squeeze a mechanic or a plumber through a data pipe, no matter how fat the pipe.

And that's why the richest person I know is a plumber.

--
The Truth About Slashdot
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by esnible · 2004-04-19 05:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Ten years from now when your pipes break you'll get a tele-operated robot in the mail.

The robot will curse in Hindi as it finds problems.
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by admiralh · 2004-04-19 05:49 · Score: 1

In a seemingly related but actually completely offtopic vein ...

There was a report on NPR about manhole covers being stolen in England, sold as scrap, and shipped off to China to be re-smelted.

--
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by SomeOneElseNamedStoP · 2004-04-19 05:56 · Score: 1

This is so funny I may have to read /. more than Fark for my laughs.
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by blitziod · 2004-04-19 06:00 · Score: 1

radiologists are doctors, they need to be licensed in the state they practice in.

--
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by blitziod · 2004-04-19 06:07 · Score: 1

ok so they will be fixed by people in mexico, repair techs( unlike call center employees) do not need to speak english to fix our stuff.

--
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by joshmccormack · 2004-04-19 06:18 · Score: 3, Funny

...and when the authorities caught up with them, and tried to figure out who was dealing in the manhold covers they determined, who ever smelt it, dealt it.

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress!
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by iminplaya · 2004-04-19 06:38 · Score: 1

The car's computer could send the data overseas to be asessed(?). Then the repair instructions sent to a mechanic, who doesn't know which end of the screwdriver to hit, at home. The cushy part of the job goes away and the "home team" does all the grunt work.

--
What?
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2004-04-19 06:55 · Score: 1

10 years? Will we have flying cars and eat all our meals in pill form, too?

-B
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by DunbarTheInept · 2004-04-19 07:44 · Score: 1

Have you ever seen where manhole covers are made?

Neenah, Wisconsin. At least, according to the logo on all the manhole covers, street drain covers, and other metal street fixtures I've seen in the area.
Definately not an outsourced job (The thing about manhole covers is - the're really heavy. Therefore distance to ship them is a large part of the cost.)

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by Garak · 2004-04-19 08:15 · Score: 1

The keyword there is 'yet'

I wouldn't take much to make telerobotics practical.

1) Bigger faster pipes(optical switching)
2) Higher res cameras(like 2Mx2M) with eye tracking software running on the client end. If you keep looking at the same spot the res gets better and better. At the sametime you have a nice big low res view. Software enhancements, etc...
3) other high res sensors(force, tempture, etc..)
4) New electronics manufactuing process. Something simlar to the way microprocessors are built today but for actuators, sensors, etc... Basicly being able to build tiny cell like componets for the robotic arms and tactile control systems. The micro scale should be more than small enough.

All of the above would just take a little money and time(a year or two). But there isn't really any hope of getting any money because the people with the money can't see past stuff that is alittle more profitable.

On a simlar note, one thing people keep forgeting about in the AI department is sensory input. All the processing power in the world isn't going to make a computer inteligent. It needs the ablity to see, touch, move and hear. The ablity to touch and interact with the world is what makes us inteligent. The seeing and hearing is a high level function that we develop later in life. At the moment we are born we can feel and interact.

AI research robots like cog at mit don't nearly have enough sensory input. Humans have skin coving the entire body which allows us to feel everything from the chair we are sitting on to the air moving accross the back of our neck. A robot like cog needs to be able to tell where it hit something, if its hard or soft, warm or cold, fast or slow, moving or not. You basicly have to cover the entire robot in micro scale sensors.

Once you have enough sensor input you program it an objective(pleasure) and self preservation(pain). Then let it learn.... Ofcourse you don't give it access to other computers/the net. Untill its learned right from wrong(Just like a child) and it also has to be easy to punish(inflict pain, or just denied its objective, or shut off)

--
God, root, what is the difference?
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by Bob+Uhl · 2004-04-19 08:53 · Score: 1

It is helping out: it means that a patient can find a less expensive physician. Don't you know, offshore outsourcing is only bad when you are the one overcharging your customers?
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by Bob+Uhl · 2004-04-19 08:57 · Score: 1

Have you even a rudimentary grasp of economic? If many jobs are outsourced, then there will be many people out of work. If new jobs are not created (a big if, considering that history shows that they always are), then people will be willing to work for less (better to make $50,000/year rather than $0, even if one would like $120,000). Wages in the US would decrease until competitive elsewhere.
It would never get to the point that the plumber would be poorly off.
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by bechthros · 2004-04-19 09:47 · Score: 1

Nobody's mentioned the best part - none of those pesky, troublesome lawsuits! How are you gonna sue a tele-doctor in India? If malpractice was involved, where did the crime take place, in India (where the tele-doctor actually made the mistake), or in America (where the patient died?)

--
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by bechthros · 2004-04-19 10:15 · Score: 1

"radiologists are doctors, they need to be licensed in the state they practice in."

And it is to prevent this troublesome little legal speedbump that we proudly present - Deregulation II! Bigger, badder and meaner than the original, Deregulation II comes with all the extra features to make your life more profitable... I mean convenient!

Laws? We don't need no stinking laws. The power-mad right wing has declared their intention, verbally and publically, to make this supposed nation of laws into an unrepentant nation of men. Those who can take, take, and they will never stop until somebody makes them stop.

--
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by Phronesis · 2004-04-19 11:38 · Score: 1

Actually, a big part of the problem is that U.S. radiologists don't like working the graveyard shift. Several U.S. companies are outsourcing X-Ray reading to Australia so radiologists can work daylight hours (local time) while reading middle-of-the-night X-Rays from the states.
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by 2nd+Post! · 2004-04-19 13:33 · Score: 1

Why is that sad? Don't you like your cheap sneakers and cheap silverware?

This is just a logical extension of offshoring to cut costs.

--

GPL Deconstructed
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by joshmccormack · 2004-04-19 13:37 · Score: 1

Ah, well, where I am a lot are from India. That's why I said what I did. As strange as it seems.
Re:Don't change jobs yet......... by LaCosaNostradamus · 2004-04-20 05:42 · Score: 1

The middle class is being dealt a lethal 2-fisted blow to the gut. The 1st fist is offshoring. The 2nd fist is immigration.

The H1B program is much on the minds of /.ers. And if the Lords of Capital can bring in some schmoe from overseas to do your job at half your wage (or at your wage without benefits), then they can do that to anyone with a high enough wage that merits the investment. Hence, plumbers, electricians, doctors, etc. With the degradation of labor power in America as defined by the downfall of the unions, even unionized labor like plumbers will feel the pinch. Cost-cutting is a disease that's infected all corporate thinking; and I don't see it stopping at any line item except executive compensation.

So, if by 2006 your plumber shows up and doesn't understand much English, recall this posting.

--
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]

I'm no mechanic, but... by r_glen · 2004-04-19 04:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'd rather have an older, less advanced car that I actually have a chance of fixing. Who needs all this new car technology anyways?

Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Otter · 2004-04-19 04:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

It depends if you're talking about headlights or crash protection. If I were on his jury, I'd acquit anyone arrested for stealing those goddamn headlights (what kind of safety feature is it to blind oncoming traffic?).
But a lot of the issues raised in the article are for what are at least supposed to make you safer. If the teenager in the first paragraph had to throw away a new BMW but got to keep his legs, how expensive was that car, really? Even just in dollars and cents, a new pair of legs isn't cheap, nor is learning to use them.

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by afidel · 2004-04-19 04:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

We all do. Because cars with more advanced engine controll computers will get better gas milage and pollute less, likewise with lighter body panels. Also better airbags (dual stage and even more advanced) are less likely to kill small women and children when they discharge in a low speed crash. Whining because mechanics have to be smarter isn't the answer, training people who used to work in a manual but skilled labor to do a manual, skilled, and knowledge based job is. So your average backyard tinkerer has less chance to fix his own vehicle, so what (and besides this is BS, look at the import racing scene where kids are able to modify the heck out of these computer filled cars). The only thing I don't get is the $3K headlights, if they were really that expensive they would be a seperate option on the car, it's just a huge markup for the manufacturer because they probably have patents on the design.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by BWJones · 2004-04-19 04:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

Although I am quite skilled myself in repairing/restoring older cars, I am more than happy to pay the higher costs after taking a look under the hood of a modern car. My Studebaker is fast and fun, but it has none of the electronics of the new cars and one can almost tear the entire thing down and rebuild it without having to consult a technical manual.

The downside of course is that it is an older car and has none of the safety gear that modern cars have. I once lost a wheel racing (and winning) a 930 turbo (when I was younger and more impetuous) as there were no safety devices that would retain it when the axle broke. You can imagine the fear that sets in at 110MPH or so when you suddenly find yourself running along with a presumably four wheel car that now happens to have only three.

As an aside, you might be surprised at how much an "automotive technician" who knows their stuff can make. The folks down at the Mercedes Benz dealer can truly clean up with six figure salaries. And judging from the last routine service bill on my mom's S-class, there may be more than one tech making that kind of salary there.

--
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by bobbis.u · 2004-04-19 04:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

But you have to admit mechanically speaking new cars are much more reliable than old ones. The components are more precisely designed, they are constructed of better (i.e. more suitable) materials and parts are machined + assembled to lower tolerances. Even tyres seem to last longer these days. I will concede that the reliability of the electronics and software does still leave a lot to be desired.
New cars are also much safer and easier to drive, both of which are important factors for most.
Perhaps we should take the view that the fact that it is no longer viable to repair cars means we have developed amazing manufacturing techniques to make the cars so cheap in the first place. We are packing a hell of a lot of engineering into one machine!
Having said all this, it is essential these new cars that are written off after a fender bender can be recycled effectively.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Lucidwray · 2004-04-19 04:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have to say. This is a total load of crap. This argument floats around all the time and its crap. Troubleshooting a new computer laden car is no different that toubleshooting a 68 VW. Any good mechanic will tell you, troubleshooting a problem is troubleshooting a problem. dosent matter if you work on the space shuttle or a toaster. Finding problems and solving them still follows the same basic rules.

As far as pricing. Yes, new stuff is expensive. But I think being in the computer industry, most people around here know that. Remember 1x CD-Rom drives. or floppy disks. They were expensive too. HID Xenon lights are expensive now. But they used to be $10,000 a bulb when they were introduced. Time and acceptance will drop the price.

Aluminum body work: there are currently 3 (well 2) cars for sale in the US that have an aluminum body. Acura NSX, Audi A8 and the now dead Prowler. The price on insurance for these cars reflects their different material. Aluminum body shop equipment is expensive because no one has it. And for good reason. There arent many cars that need it. That will change if more cars are built with aluminum skins. (probably not likley)

People used this same argument when cars first started having computers in the early 80's. Any mechanic who cant fix a modern car with todays modern tools probably shouldnt be working on a car anyway. Im sure people bitched when cars started buring gasoline too....

--
My sig can beat up your sig.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by UrgleHoth · 2004-04-19 04:29 · Score: 1

In addition, automobile manufacturers have had to implement new technology due to many pressures from legislation and consumer desires such as fuel economy, reliability, safety, and emmisions.
From reading recent reports on car reliability, it seems that we don't have the number of lemons that we used to.

--

Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Ben+Hutchings · 2004-04-19 04:29 · Score: 1

Saving fuel is all well and good, but the cost of a new car is likely to outweigh the money saved over anything less than a decade. As for the pollution from old engines, we must also consider the pollution resulting from manufacturing of new cars. The better airbags I won't dispute.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 04:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

If I were on his jury, I'd acquit anyone arrested for stealing those goddamn headlights (what kind of safety feature is it to blind oncoming traffic?).

Your point still stands but it is interesting to point out that Xenon HID lamps are not that irritating to oncoming traffice if they are properly filtered and aimed.
Its these shit ass ricers and idiot suburban wannabees that but the cheap ass aftermarket crap that aren't aimed right and are nearly unfiltered throwing an awful lot of crap in the shorter wavelengths.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Abcd1234 · 2004-04-19 04:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because cars with more advanced engine controll computers will get better gas milage and pollute less

Sure, but at what cost?? Let's suppose you buy a new car that costs, oh, $15,000 to build, but breaks down in, say, 5 years, leaving it unrepairable. Do you *really* think, in 5 years, you could conserve $15,000 worth of fuel over the lifetime of that car in order to justify it's outright disposal? Moreover, do you think it's increased efficiency can counter-balance the environment impacts of build that car, disposing of it and building a new one?
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by aceh0 · 2004-04-19 04:34 · Score: 4, Informative

I'd acquit anyone arrested for stealing those goddamn headlights (what kind of safety feature is it to blind oncoming traffic?). that's what calibration is for. halogen lights are blinding at night when they arent adjusted properly. HID has important uses like for bikes where it increases visibility during the day.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by 1c3m4n85 · 2004-04-19 04:35 · Score: 1

indeed. I've a 1982 Volvo DL sedan, which has a few slight blemishes, but is still running strong @ +241K miles. It's a 2.1l inline 4cyl. with a 4speed manual with Electronic Overdrive. I will not be suprised if I end up driving it for another 241k.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Tongo · 2004-04-19 04:36 · Score: 1

With an older car, especially 50's 60's 70's, the engines were simple enough that a reasonably intelligent person could figure out how they work. Provieded they could get the parts, it should be possible to fix these engines.

Hell my old '76 Ford F100 was simple as hell to work on. You could rebuild the engine without removing it. Just (literaly) crawl into the engine compartment and start working. In fact I learned how to rebuild the for straight six by just doing it (along with the help of a book).
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by PhotoBoy · 2004-04-19 04:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

One of our customers is a fairly large motor company and I was having lunch with some of their software guys last week when they told me about one of their new cars which will have over 40 special chips distributed throughout the car.

Apparently the diagnostic kit for this car alone costs 7000! Apparently the main reason for this is not to create disposable cars (although that's something I'm sure they'd love!) but to prevent unofficial garages from being able to perform repairs, thereby essentially restricting the the owner of the car to an official garage for the lifetime of the car.

Another off-topic thing of interest they mentioned was that the diagnostics of the car are accessed wirelessly and that these diagnostics can operate pretty much any feature in the car! I give it about a week before an exploit to unlock the car and start the engine is released... ;)
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by dasmegabyte · 2004-04-19 04:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Here, here. Most of this article is typical future shock and FUD. For one thing, the majority of the more expensive parts on a car are not likely to break, and are even LESS likely to break because of the overengineering.

Which would you prefer -- a set of steel control arms with a 3 year life at a cost of $75 plus labor each time, or a set of aluminum control arms with a ten year life at a cost of $150 plus labor?

Overall, you're saving $75 if you keep the car ten years, and $150 if you keep the car 8 or 9.

Incidentally, this is one of the things that fuels the "American cars are crap" sentiment that is common among many people. Often, American cars use less expensive parts that are also less expensive to repair. Foreign cars are more likely to be made of precision parts, with a massive cost. A new clutch kit for a Ford Taurus is around $300. A new clutch kit for my Passat is clost to $1000.

One solution, btw, is not to abandon the better quality parts, but to create an open parts standard. The more cars that use a specific part, the more generic offerings there are and the cheaper those offerings become. There's also more parts available from used auto parts catalogues.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by RetroGeek · 2004-04-19 04:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

it also makes you a better driver

No it does not.

"features" might allow less skill required for certain things, but it does NOT make you a better driver.

--

- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by grunt107 · 2004-04-19 04:52 · Score: 1

With the advent of OBD, troubleshooting newer cars is radically different. Plug in a device, read the trouble codes and fix what it says is ailing. Then you have diagnoses on the reporting devices themselves ('It says I have no motor but I am looking right at it'). The only thing that is the same is the high-level definition (have a problem/find it/fix it). Why anyone would pay 3k for a HEADLIGHT is beyond me. That type of person probably dresses their dogs in designer threads. I say remove all the B.S. on cars. Instead of making vehicles to survive a crash how 'bout teaching the dullards how to AVOID a crash. It's time to start skimming the gene pool.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Vindicator9000 · 2004-04-19 04:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'd rather have an older, less advanced car that I actually have a chance of fixing. Who needs all this new car technology anyways?
My '00 Honda Civic Ex is the best of both worlds. It's got a computer and fuel injection, but also still has a distributor - making timing changes easy. The engine is laid out intelligently (changing plugs and wires took me 5 minutes), and very well documented. Sure, it's crammed in the bay, but it's so well thought out that it doesn't matter so much. Also, it's one of the few reasonably priced well-equipped cars that you can still get with a manual transmission - seems (especially with domestics) you can usually only get the manual on the base model. Often on imports, its the other way around. Oh, and I'm pushing 92000 miles (bought it at 7000), and I've only had it in the shop to get the left power window lubricated. Clutch slips a *tiny* bit when launching from 2nd (which I shouldn't do anyway), but that's a wear/replace part. Otherwise still runs like the day I bought it.
What I can't believe is that people apparently consider many domestics to be "modern technology" at all, considering that GM is using essentially the same 3.8L pushrod V6 that they were using in the 70's. In fact, I think even the new 'Vettes have a fuel injected variation of the 35+ year old pushrod 350.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by bleublue · 2004-04-19 05:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

Cars are much more reliable than in the past. Its easy for a modern car to last more than 10 years. If you read old mags from the 50's they used to rate such features as "door fit" (I guess you couldn't even rely on the doors to shut properly on a new car).
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Vindicator9000 · 2004-04-19 05:05 · Score: 1

Any serious "racing" mod is not going to be done by a teenager on the weekend.
May I direct you to This site. Not my site, and I apologize for the background music, but there are definately people out there who learn to hack high-tech speed mods on their own just by trial and error with junk parts. Granted, they've blown up a lot of stuff on the way, but that's often part of the learning experience.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by dknj · 2004-04-19 05:11 · Score: 5, Informative

If I were on his jury, I'd acquit anyone arrested for stealing those goddamn headlights (what kind of safety feature is it to blind oncoming traffic?).

When a car leaves the dealership with HID lights, it is aimed and filtered properly so it does not blind other drivers. When a car leaves the dealership and then decides to retrofit HID lights into headlight housings meant for halogen lights, then you have problems. IIRC, the housing internals has to be modified for HID lights.

-dk
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by laigle · 2004-04-19 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Of course, the long failure life leads to a very annoying problem for those of us with older cars: by the time something does break, you can't always get a replacement. There's always going to be someone producing or remanufacturing old metal parts. But if a computer IC burns out and the manufacturer gave up on it five years ago, you're SOL.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by briansz · 2004-04-19 05:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Because cars with more advanced engine controll computers will get better gas milage and pollute less

Then why is average fuel economy decreasing?

http://www.ase.org/policy/testimony/commercetest.h tm

"The fuel economy of automotive fleets sold in this country peaked in 1988 at 28.5 miles per gallon. Now, cars going off the road and out of service are more efficient than the ones coming on. At a time when gas prices are high and looking to stay high, our fuel efficiency is moving in the wrong direction.

The last major push for an increase in CAFE standards came in 1991. The political might of the auto companies was sufficient to put down that effort, and the auto companies themselves became perhaps the chief proponent of the strategy of energy policy by wishful thinking. It worked well for them, because the policy of wishful thinking allowed the auto industry to increase the size and performance of the average vehicle, while decreasing fuel economy, all with the cooperation of the federal government. Now American consumers are faced with prices two times the amount they paid for a gallon of gasoline a year ago. And chances are great that they drove to the pump in a sport utility vehicle that falls well below the CAFE average."
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by babyrat · 2004-04-19 05:15 · Score: 1

luminum body work: there are currently 3 (well 2) cars for sale in the US that have an aluminum body. Acura NSX, Audi A8 and the now dead Prowler

And the Land Rovers, and the Porsche 928 (not being sold new anymore but have been aluminum bodied since 1979), and the Honda Insight, and the Nissan 350Z and the Ford Explorer, and the soon the be released Ford GT, and the lincoln LS and the Ferrari 360 Modena and well, I could probably go on, but clearly you don't know what you are talking about in this particulat case.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by tgd · 2004-04-19 05:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Its the stolen ones, or the illegal retrofits that are probably the ones blinding you.

People fit the housings in cars that don't have auto levelling features, so they end up too high when you put people in the back. Or they put the HID bulbs in normal housings, which don't have the correct reflector shape and cut-off, and blind people.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by afidel · 2004-04-19 05:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Because 51% of vehicles sold the last few year were light trucks or SUV's which are not regulated as to their fleet average fuel economy?!? Yep I bet that's it. If you look at the fleet average for all regulated vehicle classes you would see that we are doing better all the time.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by jred · 2004-04-19 05:25 · Score: 1

I've often thought that when I lose my job here, I'd go into automotive repair.

You need more pics of that stude, though. I flipped through all 5 pages of your gallery & there's only the one :(

--

jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Lumpy · 2004-04-19 05:27 · Score: 1

wow you either never drove owned a car in the 80's or had it erased from your brain...

remember the high tech VTEC engine nightmare? mechanics STILL wont work on those bastards from hell. EVERY GM, FORD and chrysler vehicle in the mid 80's was absolute crap. crap quality(Chrysler minivan oil pump failures) crap safety (flaming Fiero's anyone? how about fuel tank stupidity on ford Pickups?) and crap all around... Plastic that crumbles after 3 years in sunlight because of no UV stabilizers, clearcoat and primer coat failures throughout the decade from multiple companies... and engines and drivetrains that just plain sucked.

hell antilock from the 80's on GM cars and trucks was a holy hell bastard!

Yes they are better, but only the 3rd iteration.. example? 2000 honda Insights had NASTY battery problems as well as body reliability (cracks in the frame were common recall item) now in 2004 it's a nice car that you still cant get serviced anywhere but certian honda dealers.

Pontiac Bonnevile with screwed up Dashboard electronics that only recently have went away.. and lots of other problems that are hidden due to secret recalls called "service bullitens"... hmm, I could have had front break failure on my vehicle if they did not decide to do the "service bulliten" to my car for free.. was I notified of it so I could be sure it was done? not a chance...

Cars today are built better but not that much better.... it's nowhere near as rosey as you make it... and I dare you to prove that your Passat's clutch kit is more precision than that Ford Taurus.. it isn't in fact the difference is mostly cosmetic.

you are paying tarrifs and shipping.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by agallagh42 · 2004-04-19 05:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

To really make people safer drivers, you should remove all that safety gear, and add a 6 inch sharpened steel spike to the center of the steering wheel. That ought to be a good incentive to drive a little more carefully :)

Really, all those electronic driving aids make it possible to pay less attention to your driving, without increasing your risk of death. Several of the items you listed do nothing to help avoid accidents, only to help survivability when you do smash into something.

Really, what we need on this continent (N.A.), is mandatory advanced driver training and skid school. There are far too many people out there on the roads that have no idea where the performance limits of their cars are, or what to do when they pass those limits.

--
Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by joshmccormack · 2004-04-19 05:30 · Score: 1

Absolutely, the legs are worth it. But just focusing on the air bags and such (not on the stupid lights and exotic metals and what not in the article), why can't this be commoditized, or made somewhat independent of the car? I guess it's nice that airbags are hidden away or something, but what if they were more like car batteries or something - put it in the right place, plug it in, there you go.

Or how about some car manufacturer making their cars inexpensive to maintain, with affordable replacement parts? Would that not be attractive to people? It does seem like people only want their car for 3 years and the idea of an accident seems very foreign to them.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by goosman · 2004-04-19 05:31 · Score: 1

While I would love to have some less advanced features that would allow me to fix it myself,
a lot of these advances are in the area of safety.
I guess I'm happy to have the advanced features and materials that make me, my wife, and my kids safer.

There are a lot of things wrong with cars, but I'd never trade the safety advances for simplicity.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by joshmccormack · 2004-04-19 05:32 · Score: 1

The only thing I don't get is the $3K headlights, if they were really that expensive they would be a seperate option on the car, it's just a huge markup for the manufacturer because they probably have patents on the design.

They are an option, but for most people it would be like saying seats or a stereo are optional. My coworker's dad insisted on not having them, and from the story I heard it was a hard battle to not get them.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by cmacb · 2004-04-19 05:33 · Score: 1

"Any good mechanic will tell you, troubleshooting a problem is troubleshooting a problem. dosent matter if you work on the space shuttle or a toaster. Finding problems and solving them still follows the same basic rules."

Oh, yeah, I'm familiar with that...

Do Forever
--- Accept non-functioning car from owner and do paperwork
--- Replace component of car not recently replaced
--- Drive car around block
--- Return car to owner, take money
--- Tell owner there may be some break-in period for new part
End
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Lord+Kano · 2004-04-19 05:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'd rather have an older, less advanced car that I actually have a chance of fixing. Who needs all this new car technology anyways?

All of this high priced technology is primarily about one thing. Fuel efficience/Emmissions requirements. It's an impossible choice really. We can have cars that we can fix affordably or we can have maximum fuel efficiency with minimal pollution.

I have two automobiles, one is 11 years old and the other is 18 years old. I can fix most of the things on them myself. Looking under the hood of a car that was made in the mid 90s or after lets me know that I don't know as much about cars as I *think* I do.

Using an O2 sensor to alter the fuel mixture/spark advance is something that makes sense to me. Using an catalytic converter to reduce CO makes sense to me. Some of these new emmissions controls are just beyond me.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by ipxodi · 2004-04-19 05:39 · Score: 1

Absolutely -- When I got to driving age in the early 80's, a car was considered to be "old" past 50,000 miles and pretty much fit for the junk yard by 100K. Now you've got cars that are barely broken in by 50,000 and probably won't even need their first tune-up 'till 100,000 miles. Car makers like Saab and Volvo used to give medallions to owners whose cars passed 100K and 250K miles -- these days a car with 150-200K miles is not that much of an oddity anymore.

--
load "windows7" ,8,1
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Tourney3p0 · 2004-04-19 05:39 · Score: 1

Why does it matter if the Corvette still uses a pushrod 350? It gets 30 miles per gallon for a v8 with 350 horsepower, and the base Chevy 350 it's based on is one of the most reliable motors ever. The technology is in the intake and fuel injection, not the block. Spending millions toward R&D for a new product would serve only to drive up prices for the initial product, then drive up repair costs.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Suidae · 2004-04-19 05:46 · Score: 1

Do you *really* think, in 5 years, you could conserve $15,000 worth of fuel

Depends on the price you put on the environment I guess.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Lord+Kano · 2004-04-19 05:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Foreign cars are more likely to be made of precision parts, with a massive cost. A new clutch kit for a Ford Taurus is around $300. A new clutch kit for my Passat is clost to $1000.

I think you're also ignoring something else that American automakers do. They recycle parts amongst models. For example, I drive a GMC Jimmy and a Chevrolet Camaro. The Jimmy's parts are interchangeable with parts from the Blazer,Bravada, S10 and S15. My Camaro's parts are interchangeable with the Firebird and Trans Am.

Since they only have to make one part for multiple models of car, these parts cost less to make. Economics of scale and all. I think that has a LOT to do with foreign cars needing more expensive parts than their american counterparts in the same price range.

The more cars that use a specific part, the more generic offerings there are and the cheaper those offerings become. There's also more parts available from used auto parts catalogues.

This is exactly what is going on with current American made cars.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by DamnRogue · 2004-04-19 05:51 · Score: 1

I have NEVER seen a car with HID lights that I did not find irritating and distracting. I have a hard time believing that they were all retrofit or stolen.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by micromoog · 2004-04-19 05:52 · Score: 1

In any case, any set of HID lights will blind you when the oncoming car is angled up (top of a hill, etc.). Which happens ALL THE TIME where I live.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Martin+Blank · 2004-04-19 05:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Probably because those that are properly installed and calibrated aren't noticed by you. They do look different from normal cars, but not so much so that you'd notice unless you were looking for them (the blue-white spot in the center of the headlamp case is still visible, but not blindingly so).

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Martin+Blank · 2004-04-19 06:01 · Score: 1

Many parts can be this way -- look at car stereos, for example. Airbags are a bit different, though, in that they have to be fit to the area in which they're being installed and they have to respond at the right time for the expected space between the inflation point and the impacting body. I'm not sure what happens (if anything bad) if the body is further than expected, but if the body is closer than expected, the person can suffer injuries from the inflation process itself.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Vindicator9000 · 2004-04-19 06:03 · Score: 1

Good point, but OHC engines are arguably capable of producing even more efficiancy by having separate cams for each cylinder bank, or even having separate intake/exhaust cams for each cylinder bank. A lot of car companies (Honda, Nissan, Mazda) are even taking this to the next level by having different cam profiles for different RPMs - they kick in a more agressive intake/exhaust curve at a certain RPM so that you can maximize fuel economy and performance on-the-fly.
Another great point about many (not all) modular engines from an enthusiast perspective is that major parts can often be easily interchanged. Want to up the Horsepower of your 2000 Civic Si? Put B18 Civic Type R camshafts in it, with a thinner head gasket. Hell, replace the whole head - QED, and you'll be pushing 190HP from a 1.6L engine, and still getting close to 40MPG. If Chevy built engines with the same displacement/HP ratio as Honda, then that 5.7L would be pushing 600HP, without forced induction!
Not saying that the old pushrod 350 isn't a great engine (the late model Camaros with it killed the modular Mustangs), but rather that it's not as high-tech a platform as GM would have people believe, and that there are possibly better solutions now.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 06:07 · Score: 1, Informative

Well, Assuming you are not in CA or somewhere with similar smog laws, there are aftermarket fuel injection computers available: Electromotive, AEM, Wolf, Haltech, Simple Digital Systems and others make engine control computers ranging from several hundred to several thousand dollars. It all depends on how bad you want to keep your car.

These are all fully programmable, which of course means you or someone else has to program them before they will work, which isnt particularly an easy task, and most of them wont control things like VTEC/VVTI, but They are an option none the less. And most of them will also require wire harness adaptation (they wont just plug right in) Not an easy solution, but again it all depends on how bad you want to keep your car.

WolfEMS http://www.wolfems.com.au/home

Haltech http://www.haltech.com/

AEM http://www.aempower.com/product_ems.asp

Electromotive http://www.electromotive-inc.com/

SimpleDigitalSystemshttp://www.sdsefi.com/

CA Smog law stuff Basically if its aftermarket it has to be approved, and none of these are, there are a bunch of approved ECU reburns but no full on programmale systems.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Buelldozer · 2004-04-19 06:15 · Score: 1

"So your average backyard tinkerer has less chance to fix his own vehicle, so what (and besides this is BS, look at the import racing scene where kids are able to modify the heck out of these computer filled cars)."

I am curious how old you are since the above was spoken like someone with no mechanical ability who pays out the nose to have everything fixed or someone with no responsibility to maintain a vehicle.

Americans have been repairing their own vehicles for many years, and in a lot of cases it is MUCH cheaper to repair your own then to pay someone else.

For instance when the transmission in my wife's Ford Explorer snapped it's output shaft the Ford dealer wanted well over $1200 US to repair it.

I purchased the parts and repaired it myself for less then $500, when you are raising a family and everything happens on a budget that $700 difference is means I could afford to buy a new stove for my kitchen as well as replace the leaking water heater.

As for your crack at the "ricers" for modifying their vehicles, well, it is obvious that you don't have any hobbies requiring you to manipulate anything beyond what it was originally manufactured for.

You don't overclock anything do you? Do you use a "surge strip" or an "extension cord" to modify the number of electrical outlets available to you?

Let me guess, you haven't checked your amperage draw to make sure that the inwall wiring is rated for such current have you?

Oooops. Let those who are perfect cast the first stone...
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Carnildo · 2004-04-19 06:20 · Score: 1

I'll dispute that.

My last car, chosen for safety and fuel economy, was a 1986 Toyota Camry. Street gas milage: 31 mpg.

My current car, chosen by the same criteria, is a Honda Civic. Street gas milage: 32 mpg.

It seems to me that, outside of special cases like hybrid-electrics, that fuel economy has pretty much leveled off.

--
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Deluge · 2004-04-19 06:20 · Score: 1

All of this high priced technology is primarily about one thing. Fuel efficience/Emmissions requirements. It's an impossible choice really. We can have cars that we can fix affordably or we can have maximum fuel efficiency with minimal pollution.

That part of the high priced technology is confined to the things that have to do with the engine and drivetrain.

The fact is that the cars are stuffed with a lot more techno-uselessness than they need to be. I don't want voice commands, I don't want my dashboard to have an LED display that will scroll scheduled maintenance reminders at me. I don't want radio controls on my steering wheel or voice commands. I don't want ABS and traction control and stability programs, because I a) don't need them and b) don't like them because with them switched on the car does not behave the way it should given certain input by me. I don't want computerized climate control for 4 different zones in the car, I don't want a DVD entertainment system, and I don't want to drive around in the fear that if I bump into something I'm going to get pummeled by airbags that are inflated by explosives.

So basically my only option is an economy car. I can't have a luxury car nowadays without having to accept that a computer decides when my ass is too cold and will start the seat warmer for me, or having to not have any other choice but an automatic transmission which shifts according to commands from a usually braindead computer.

I can foresee a day when the only bastion of automotive sanity will be the cutrate econoboxes from Hyundai and Kia and such, because even a simple Corolla these days is getting pretty complex.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by blitziod · 2004-04-19 06:25 · Score: 1

how about an "open source" car. No patents, anyone can make it, have codes for it, etc.

--
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Kiryat+Malachi · 2004-04-19 06:25 · Score: 1

The last automotive module I worked on, the design spec called for roughly the following:

(6sigma) of units may fail in first 15 years in operation.
(6sigma) of units may fail in 150,000 miles.

6sigma equates to roughly 3.4 failures per million.

Cars are being designed to a *much* higher spec than they used to be.

--

---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Portent · 2004-04-19 06:26 · Score: 1

Which would you prefer -- a set of steel control arms with a 3 year life at a cost of $75 plus labor each time, or a set of aluminum control arms with a ten year life at a cost of $150 plus labor?
Next time you have to replace the ball joints on your Passat, you'll pay the price for fancy aluminum suspension parts. The ball joints (a part that needs regular replacement) are "fused" into an aluminum suspension piece. That part is very expensive, and you have to replace it all as one (a long long time before the aluminum part fails).
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by MrNonchalant · 2004-04-19 06:27 · Score: 1

You're kidding right? This is Slashdot, where poster's idea of tricking out a car involves overclocking the CPU and adding large color monitors that will only ever display the command line.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by red+floyd · 2004-04-19 06:29 · Score: 1

GM is using essentially the same 3.8L pushrod V6 that they were using in the 70's

Are you sure? ISTR that the mid-70's GM V6 engines were crap, because they essentially took a V8 and hacked off two cylinders... without changing the timing (so that they went fire-fire-fire-pause). I had a '78 Chevy Monza V6 (only thing I could afford at the time), and it vibrated so bad that I wound up replacing the engine mounts. I've driven newer GM V6's and they're a hell of a lot smoother.

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by zsz2k · 2004-04-19 06:35 · Score: 1

My two cents: I have a 2001 Audi that I routinely work on/maintain/modify.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Requiem+Aristos · 2004-04-19 06:36 · Score: 1

From a Society of Automotive Engineers paper published in 1917:

"agitation over the effect of glare caused by powerful headlamps has gradually increased until we are threatened with drastic legislation."

Except, this is about using /electric/ headlights. You know, the things before we had halogens? The same complains came up with the switch to halogens. In short, people will probably adapt.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by blitziod · 2004-04-19 06:37 · Score: 1

well hybrid trucks and SUV's are coming on the market in the next year. This will eliminate many classes of parts and systems as we use internal combustion ONLY for power generation. This will allow more modular designs.

--
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by jandrese · 2004-04-19 06:38 · Score: 4, Informative

"Properly aimed and focused" only works on flat straight roads! If you're coming up a hill and one of these guys crests the hill in front of you he will blind you way worse than a regular car. Often times I'll loose sight of the road entirely, unlike regular headlights which just cause a lot of glare.

--

I read the internet for the articles.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by zsz2k · 2004-04-19 06:40 · Score: 1

That is because you tend not to stare as much at halogen lights as you do at HIDs (this is actually a known, expected factor!).
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by AK+Marc · 2004-04-19 06:44 · Score: 1

that's what calibration is for.

Not according to the government. Many (most?) places don't care about aiming. Even if aimed properly, the federal governemnt *requires* glare sufficient to cause problems when it is properly aimed. HID is no more or less bright than others. It just looks a little different so people pay more attention to it.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Rich0 · 2004-04-19 06:50 · Score: 1

How about the environmental cost of building it in the first place then? I'm guessing that those fancy $15k parts require the use of oil to manufacture them...
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by WryCoder · 2004-04-19 06:57 · Score: 1

Some of the replies claim that HD lights are not a problem if properly "filtered and aimed". However, unless your car is equipped with a load-leveling suspension, adding weight in back (luggage or trailer) is going to raise the beam angle. Modern lights have a very sharp cut-off and must be aimed correctly to avoid dazzling on-coming cars. How many people go to the bother of doing this after they load up for a trip? Also, when two cars meet coming over hills, the beams are noticeably tilted upwards and rather blinding.
You can't depend on even the dealers to get aiming correct. I had mine done recently, and it's pretty clear to me that now they are too high, even the low beams illuminate the trees. I must be blinding people now. It's not true that these lights are no brighter than the older styles. Just drive a car equipped with them.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by donutello · 2004-04-19 07:01 · Score: 1

It depends if you're talking about headlights or crash protection. If I were on his jury, I'd acquit anyone arrested for stealing those goddamn headlights (what kind of safety feature is it to blind oncoming traffic?).

BMWs have self-leveling Xenon HIDs. The pattern on the headlights is expressly designed to NOT blind oncoming traffic.

--
Mmmm.. Donuts
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by argStyopa · 2004-04-19 07:01 · Score: 1

Maybe the point is to throw the bums out. "...the political might of the auto companies..." what a load. Did they threaten the senator's family? Did they stick a horsehead into the bed of the congresswoman? No (at least I hope not). They waved around fat checks and, like a slobbery golden retriever [although far less interested in your well being, as a rule] congresspeople trotted along the dotted line and voted as ordered.

Doesn't anyone else find this repulsive? I mean, it's BOTH sides - the Republicans are in bed with big oil, the Dems are in bed with organized labor & trial lawyers (no less corrupt, thank you very much).

This is the part of our political system that I find absolutely repellent. I understand that not every congressperson is a "Mr. Smith", but geez, is it SO impossible to simply do what's right? /impotent rant

--
-Styopa
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by SuperQ · 2004-04-19 07:03 · Score: 1

now with volvo, you get noticed for having 1M miles on your car.. I saw lots of cars in perfect running condition in finland with 300k or more miles on them. Then again, in Minnesota, they salt the hell out of the roads in the winter, so you're lucky to have an underbody after 10 winter seasons. Finland doesn't salt roads, you are required to have winter-tread tires instead. Then again.. Nokia was a rubber boot/tire company before they did cell phones :)
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by dmayle · 2004-04-19 07:08 · Score: 1

I'd rather have an older, less advanced car that I actually have a chance of fixing. Who needs all this new car technology anyways?
Wow... A debian stable user if I ever heard one...
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by ImpTech · 2004-04-19 07:13 · Score: 1

True that. They're also quite bad when the car behind you has them, particularly if said car is a truck/SUV and they're pouring straight into your rear window.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Nightbrood · 2004-04-19 07:28 · Score: 1

Hmmm,

I'd love to see a new or even a recent Taurus with a clutch. I just had my Taurus transmission go out (after 140,000 miles) and it would have cost $2000 (transmission was $1600 of that) to fix a car that was worth $900. Needless to say I drive a nice new shiny car while my old car was shipped off to some charity to part out.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by bear_phillips · 2004-04-19 07:34 · Score: 1

but breaks down in, say, 5 years, leaving it unrepairable
You're forgeting that new cars have MUCH better quality. I had to work on my 1970 GMS pickup all the time. My 1996 Buick has 155K and has only been in the shop twice. The newer car does cost more to fix, but it breaks down way less often.

--
http://www.windmeadow.com/
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by G00F · 2004-04-19 07:42 · Score: 1

Lets see you say that in another 20 years about that same computer filled car.

--
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Paul+Komarek · 2004-04-19 07:43 · Score: 1

Are auto-levelling devices legal in the US? The US version of the VW Golf GLS does not have a manual headlight aiming adjustment in the cabin, but at least some European versions do.

-Paul Komarek
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by CAIMLAS · 2004-04-19 07:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Is that so?

Then why is it that every single blue-tinted headlight that I pass on the road blinds me? I don't think there are too many ricer fools that drive SUVs or other yuppie vehicles.

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by SnappleMaster · 2004-04-19 07:59 · Score: 1

Then why is average fuel economy decreasing?

Because American consumers are fucking morons. What kind of idiot thinks it's okay to drive alone to work every single day in a car that gets 8-12 MPG? An American living in suburbia, that's who. If morons wouldn't buy these moronic cars, they wouldn't be made. The auto industry is not forcing all these buttheads to do their individual worst to destroy the environment.

Sorry for the rant but this trend disgusts and disturbs me. I realize not everyone drives an environment-killer but some days you'd never guess that where I live.

--
Be happy. Nothing else matters.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by bnenning · 2004-04-19 08:03 · Score: 1

Then why is average fuel economy decreasing?

Because people like SUVs.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Osty · 2004-04-19 08:05 · Score: 1

Maybe they should be checked every 3k miles or be gyro stablized. They are a bad solution to fixing the problem of it is dark at night.

My HID lights are auto-leveling. I would expect that all high-end cars with xenon lights from the factory are auto-leveling. It's the aftermarket pieces that cause the problem.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by caswelmo · 2004-04-19 08:09 · Score: 1

And I'd rather have an newer, more advanced car with lots of features that make me comfortable. And I think most people in the nation would agree with me.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by skifreak87 · 2004-04-19 08:10 · Score: 1

In response to your open standards comment. What incentive does a company have to make a product to sell you designed specifically so that others can easily make it and try to outsell them? Why should a company try and make things cheaper for consumers when in doing so, it will increase competition for them and make it more difficult to make a profit?

We live in a capitalist society where money is generally the most important factor. I've taken several optimization courses and when you want to maximize two things (such as profit and cheapness to consumers) one has to take a backseat to the other, it's too difficult to try and optimize both.

One thing I frequently see people complaining about on /. is companies who lock you into their products (software/hardware/document formats/you name it). They do this for a reason. Compatibility allows you to pick from a wider range of products and are thus less likely to pick theirs. Most product-driven companies aren't concerned with selling you the best product, they want to sell you THEIR product. Economic theory states that they will have to make their product the best in order for you to buy it but that only works in perfectly competitive markets (low/no barriers to entry/exit) with perfect information.

The only way companies would agree to create an open parts standard would be if it would somehow be more profitable to them (which I cannot imagine unless none of them made a certain part that they all needed and thus they want to drive the price down for it by increasing competition).

Corporations are not evil, not out to screw you, they're just out to maximize their profit and screwing you is a side-affect. Products aren't priced at the cost of making them (including labor costs/all that jazz), they're priced so as to maximize profit for the company selling them. That's the short answer to why a car that costs as much/less to make as one made 5 years ago can cost thousands of dollars more. Lastly, some products are popular solely because they are super expensive. Dropping the price on these "trendy" products, would possibly decrease demand and thus lower profits even more.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by tgd · 2004-04-19 08:16 · Score: 1

They're required, manual levelling isn't legal in the US.

Euro cars and Mexican cars often have a knob to do it. US cars have a compression sensor on the front and rear springs.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by kruczkowski · 2004-04-19 08:28 · Score: 1

Some places like Germany use dried cow urine. I don't remeber the name but they tell kids not to put it in there mouths.

--
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Kiryat+Malachi · 2004-04-19 08:28 · Score: 1

I'm with you on a lot of that, but radio/cruise controls on your steering wheel are kinda nice.

--

---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by EXrider · 2004-04-19 08:50 · Score: 1

These Japanese displacement/HP ratios are so inflated. Nobody realizes the importance of torque! An '04 Civic SI makes 160HP and 132 LB-FT of torque. Sure the new Accord's 3L V6 makes 240HP and 212 FT-LB of torque. But a '98 Mustang GT makes 225HP and 290 FT-LB. The supercharged 2004 Mustang Cobra Makes a neck-snapping 390HP and 390 FT-LB of torque, want even more power from that cobra?, simply change the supercharger pulley out for a smaller one, and put on a cold air intake. Voila, an additional ~50HP and ~50 FT-LB for under $200.

Variable valve timed engines (VTEC, VVTI, etc.) are designed to be a compromise between economy and performance, economy is an afterthought on a real sports car, otherwise Chevy's LS-1 would have variable valve timing. Ford does make variable valve timed motors such as the Z-Tec in the SVT Focus, which is another car designed for economy/performance. It's a completely different objective.

And if Honda, Nissan, Toyota, etc. made engines that had the same torque to HP ratio of american V8's then they would be a hell of a lot faster; and the torque steer from the front wheels drive starving for traction would literally rip your arms off, and send you careening into the nearest phone pole!

You can put a fat ass turbo on a japanese motor to bring the torque up enough to compete, but then your engine's reliability and economy go to hell, and you still have turbo lag which means you won't have the instant torque of a V8 when you step on the pedal, and you still have front wheel drive, which sucks from any performance standpoint.

--
grep -iw skynet /etc/services
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 08:52 · Score: 1, Informative

You should know that OEM xenon lights have a color temperature of 4100K - they are no more blue-tinted than the sun. The lens in a projector headlight can create a prismatic effect that will throw out higher-frequency light waves around "the edges."

But, you will be surprised to learn that even halogen projector head-lights (like on recent Kia models) have this same blue sparkle effect with no xenon or other high-intensity discharge light source being present.

On the other hand, projector light systems are extremely good at providing both more efficient and more direct use of the light source. A projector is able to provide a very well defined cut-off such that if your eyes are above the cut-off you will see less than 1/1000th of the light below the cut-off, far better than traditional reflector-based headlights (HID or not).

What does this all mean to you? Who knows, but you are clearly complaining in ignorance, not unlike many others with similar attitudes regarding this subject. The least you can do is to educate yourself on the topic here's a couple of good places to start: www.candlepowerforums.com and www.hidforum.com.com -- good luck.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Lord+Kano · 2004-04-19 09:00 · Score: 1

I feel you. I would much rather they left the cars open for these things but didn't install ALL OF THEM.

So basically my only option is an economy car.

Please remember your choice of an older car.

Some very nice cars from the early to mid 1990s are on the market. Compared to a new vehicle, you can even replace a lot of the components and still save money.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by RimfireShooter · 2004-04-19 09:15 · Score: 1

CAFE standards are crap. They exist only because politicians dont have the balls to raise gasoline taxes. IF avg fuel economy is going down it's the consumers fault not the mfgrs. They amke a product - dont like it dont buy it. Economics 101 - you cant legislate the supply side. Damn democrats.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Bob+Uhl · 2004-04-19 09:34 · Score: 1

This is true because the currently popular cars are less-regulated SUVs and trucks. Not that it matters--if folks wish to waste their money on gas, far be it from to complain. Sure it drives up prices, but so too does demand for any commodity. If everyone else quite eating beef it'd be much cheaper when I wanted to eat it:-)
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by M-G · 2004-04-19 09:37 · Score: 1

For one thing, the majority of the more expensive parts on a car are not likely to break, and are even LESS likely to break because of the overengineering.

Sure, overall cars are lasting longer and longer. But the problem that this article talks about are high post-collision repair costs. It also hints at the electronic nightmare these cars will become. You can say what you want, but a car is very rough environment for electronics. Those electronics will fail, and you'll find out that the part is NLA.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Zerbey · 2004-04-19 09:38 · Score: 1

It depends if you're talking about headlights or crash protection. If I were on his jury, I'd acquit anyone arrested for stealing those goddamn headlights (what kind of safety feature is it to blind oncoming traffic?).

What you're probably being blinded by is either a) idiots who've adjusted the calibration of the lights or b) idiots driving with their high-beams on all the time. Properly calibrated lights should never blind oncoming traffic.

Both kinds of drivers should be slowly tortured and then executed. That's just my unbiased opinion. :)
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Buran · 2004-04-19 09:39 · Score: 2, Informative

VW (who makes the Passat) does indeed do part sharing. I've got an overhead console out of a Passat W8 in my Golf, for example. (The W8 console has red LED backlighting like the rest of the controls and the Golf part doesn't, and has red LEDs that provide dim but nice nighttime cabin lighting.) The Golf is the Jetta is the New Beetle is the GTI is the Audi TT is a Seat or two is a Skoda or two is a ... yougettheidea.

And a lot of the parts are transplantable, like the console is. (Wheels aren't; the Passat has a different lug pattern than the Golf/Jetta/New Beetle.) The Passat has the same 1.8T engine that the Golf, Jetta, and New Beetle do. The Eurovan has the Jetta/Golf GTI VR6. Etc.

Some of the "problem" is engineering philosophies and some of it is foreign currency exchange rates. And VWs are one of the easiest foreign makes to get aftermarket parts for, Honda being the other. There's probably just as much aftermarket VW/Honda stuff available as there is from Mopar and other suppliers of go-fast parts for American cars.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by M-G · 2004-04-19 09:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Because 51% of vehicles sold the last few year were light trucks or SUV's which are not regulated as to their fleet average fuel economy?!?

Actually, trucks are regulated by CAFE, it's just that they fall into a different segment and have a lower standard than cars.

CAFE has really become a complicated mess? Under CAFE, Chrysler can classify the PT Cruiser as a truck, because of the way the seats fold and create a flat cargo floor. The PT Cruiser convertible, OTOH, has to be classified as a car.

More info
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by WiPEOUT · 2004-04-19 10:16 · Score: 1

Chances are if they ceased manufacturing them 5 years ago, then the car went out of production over 10 years ago (or more).

Cars are constantly improving, particularly in terms of emissions, fuel efficiency, handling, braking and safety. As a result, I'm glad that 15-30 years after manufacture the (relative) shitbox will eventually be unrepairable.

Here in Australia, one of the major preventable problems with motoring is that there are lots of rust-buckets on the road (unlike most of western europe, and particularly germany, where the entire system is geared to keeping the population of vehicles relatively new). This problem results in ridiculously low speed limits, simply because they have to cater for the lowest common denominator: that 70-year-old with failing vision & reflexes who's both in denial and driving a clapped-out 35-year-old bomb; or, that 17-year-old with no idea of how to drive, with 4 of his friends jammed into an old, thrashed econo-performance car designed to go fast in a straight line, but with shocking handling characteristics, brakes, no safety technology and badly modified to boot.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by shiftless · 2004-04-19 11:18 · Score: 1

That's the problem, dude- it's not that it's hard to learn how to fix a new car. It's that the tools are FUCKING EXPENSIVE, and the cars are POORLY DESIGNED. I had to remove the windshield washer reservoir and a chassis brace to remove the battery from my mom's 95 Monte Carlo. Hell, you couldn't even see it, let alone access the terminals in case of a dead battery along the side of the road.

Going back to the tools, do you know how much it costs for a diagnostic machine to hook to ODB-II computers? And the thing is, lots of manufacturers keep some of their interface data secret, so this locks out the small independent repair shops and the do-it-yourselfer from being able to diagnose a problem.

THAT'S what's wrong with today's automobiles.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Phronesis · 2004-04-19 11:48 · Score: 1

To say nothing about the cost of disposing of the remains of the car---it's a lot harder to recycle all the plastic and composite materials than plain old steel.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Phronesis · 2004-04-19 11:59 · Score: 1

The article was not discussing parts that break from wear and tear, but parts that must be replaced after low-speed collisions that would have been repairable on an older car. I don't mind having expensive parts that I must replace only infrequently. What I don't like is the idea that my car is totalled by a 5 mph collision.
There is a real tradeoff between safety and repairability. Crumple zones save lives in higher-speed collisions, but result in needless damage to the car in low-speed collisions. Overall, my life is worth enough to me that I am willing to face a higher risk of irreparable damage to the car in order to reduce the risk of irreparable damage to my body.
Air bags, though are what really annoy me! They add only a small increment in safety if you're already wearing your belt, but they add a lot to the cost of the car and even more to the cost of collision repairs.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by cbiltcliffe · 2004-04-19 13:10 · Score: 1

So your average backyard tinkerer has less chance to fix his own vehicle, so what (and besides this is BS, look at the import racing scene where kids are able to modify the heck out of these computer filled cars).

A new air filter, chopped springs and fartcan exhaust is not "modifying the heck out of" a car, no matter how many decals you stick on it.

High lift camshaft, high compression pistons, ported and polished heads, lightweight flywheel, single-plane intake manifold and a Holley 4 barrel, exhaust headers, and dual DynoMax's, and now you're getting close.

I have yet to see any "import tuner" who does anything to the engine's internals. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, it's just a heck of a lot less prevalent than internal mods to an older rear-drive V8.

--
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by 2nd+Post! · 2004-04-19 13:53 · Score: 1

So be fair. Car C has computer control and Car A does not.

Both cost $15k to build. No difference.
Both break down in a freak accident in 5 years. No difference.
What makes you think a break down in Car C is irreparable compared to Car A?

If it's a computer failure... that's simple enough to replace and repair. Nothing mechanical.

If it's a mechanical failure... then Car A will be just as irreparable.

So the end result:

You will spend more in fuel and pollution than in Car C, and with no net difference in production, no net difference in failure, and no net difference in disposal.

So yes, the answer has to be "The increased efficiency can counter-balance the environmental impacts of ZERO to build the car, disposing of it and building a new one."

--

GPL Deconstructed
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by afidel · 2004-04-19 15:19 · Score: 1

First off, I have the ability to fix my own car. A friend and I did a frame up restoration on a 1964 Corvette Stingray convertible, absolutly beutiful car. However my current car is a 99 Ford Taurus with Duretec engine, this car is already at ~160K miles and it hasn't had a single thing done to it other than routine maintenance (breaks, tires, fluids, filters). For a daily driver I'll take the Taurus any day over the Vette because I don't HAVE to work on it. I expect the Taurus will need a tuneup at around 200K miles and will probably go till around 300K if I choose to drive it that long. Second, I didn't call anyone a ricer, I said that people who whine about technology making cars impossible to work on need to either study up or give their car to someone who can because there are kids still in high school who are doing all kinds of work on computer filled cars. And finally while I might tweak my home computer I don't expect most laymen to be able to do it, especially not safely without some reasearch.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by LaCosaNostradamus · 2004-04-20 07:16 · Score: 1

If you must put it like that, then I think I prefer a set of steel arms which will rust and look nasty in 3 years, but will run structurally for much longer than that, and I can buy them for $75 new or $40 used, and put in myself ... as opposed to a set of aluminum ones costing twice that new.

I am suspicious about terms like part life[span]. I used to plate steel with zinc. Longer lifespans for rust resistance were increased (as measured by hours exposed to a salt spray before spot rust appeared) for no discernable reason, except to leave me curious about automakers superqualifying their suppliers in order to weed them out.

Cheap steel parts that get the job done should not be underestimated. They have a place in car construction. We can at least see two basic auto markets: low and high end. The low end cars can be built with no amenities and with plated steels; the high end with many options, and materials like stainless steel, aluminum and composites.

--
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Abcd1234 · 2004-04-20 07:20 · Score: 1

Umm, the point of this article was that cars are getting to the point where they're very difficult to fix, or very expensive, due to all the high tech parts that are going into them, and that this may result in the development of "disposable cars". Therefore:

Q: "What makes you think a break down in Car C is irreparable compared to Car A?"

A: "That's the theory the article is positing".

Please, RTFA.
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by LaCosaNostradamus · 2004-04-20 07:21 · Score: 1

On the 1st applicable day of winter, when the snowfall permits, I make sure I get into a parking lot and start a couple of skids. Skidding is alarming to my body and the shock can freeze my reactions; hence I practice to get myself used to it (after 6 months of calm) so my reactions can govern the skid and not just friction. I suspect few people do this kind of thing.

--
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by 2nd+Post! · 2004-04-20 08:16 · Score: 1

I don't think the article is correct regarding disposable cars, but my question and theory is *right*

Q: "What makes you think a break down in Car C is irraparable compared to Car A?"

The article talks about rising component costs; rising tool costs; and rising skillset requirements to do repairs effectively. This won't make cars disposable nor repairs obsolete. This will guarantee that only authorized dealers/repair shops can service the cars.

There is a very valid computer analogy: iMacs and iBooks are extremely difficult to take apart and service without the training and experience an authorized repair shop has.

Like that, then, a modern car would require more exotic skills, tools, and parts to effectively repair, but it wouldn't make it irreparable, and it especially doesn't make older cars better. The article itself talks about the costs associated with airbags and seat belts since those are one use.

And older car *without* airbags, and *without* automatic seat tensioners is so much more unsafe in an accident it's not funny. Try getting rammed by an SUV, or broadsided by a truck, which car would you prefer?

I have my preferences there, and it *also* comes 'free' with better fuel economy, lower emissions, and higher performance.

--

GPL Deconstructed
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by Abcd1234 · 2004-04-20 10:38 · Score: 1

I don't think the article is correct regarding disposable cars

Then what you have to say has no bearing on my post. My post was reacting to the idea of disposable cars and how they're a bad idea, and are *not* a savings simply due to improved technology.

Your post, while interesting, is entirely orthogonal. You're discussing why cars won't become disposable in the first place. I'm discussing why disposable cars are a bad idea, in terms of energy efficiency, environmental effects, etc.

In fact, I think you're entirely correct. I don't think cars will ever become disposable, partly for the reasons you list, partly because of market forces. See, manufacturer for a car must at least make back the money they put into it, meaning thousands of dollars per car, minimum. There's no way your average consumer will swallow the idea of paying a few thousand dollars on something that's *disposable*!
Re:I'm no mechanic, but... by 2nd+Post! · 2004-04-20 10:48 · Score: 1

Sorry for the goose chase then, I focused on the wrong part of your post :)

--

GPL Deconstructed

Its Too Easy To Fry! by nevek · 2004-04-19 04:02 · Score: 5, Informative

I work as a car stereo installer, we installed a high end stereo into a new lexus, the stereo was defective and ended out shorting a circuit, for some reason the computer that was tied in with the stereo (for door chimes I think) got fried aswell., Ended up costing the shop 700$ for a replacement part.

As these cars get more and more advanced its getting harder for doityourselfers to even attempt to modify or maintian them.

Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by Deraj+DeZine · 2004-04-19 04:07 · Score: 5, Funny

As these cars get more and more advanced its getting harder for doityourselfers to even attempt to modify or maintian them.

Someone please tell my dad this. He's always trying to fix cars that are a little too complicated for anyone to figure out in a weekend. The cars slowly start to have problems more frequently until, at long last, the car stops running on the highway and I'm 20 miles from claiming my lottery ticket on my way to marrying Britney Spears. You could say I'm bitter.

--
True story.
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by KingOfBLASH · 2004-04-19 04:17 · Score: 1

The computer that controlled the ABS on my Passat died (for no apparent reason), and it cost $2k to fix. I had to take it to close to 3 regular places, and then a dealer to finally figure out why the brakes didn't work and the brake light was lit up. The worst part about it is it's not like I could have been like, "I don't need the brakes, so I'll save money".
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by utahjazz · 2004-04-19 04:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

As these cars get more and more advanced its getting harder for doityourselfers to even attempt to modify or maintian them

Yet, somehow it becomes easier to build/mod your own computer as they become more advanced.

Too bad there isn't some 'Personal Car' platform.
We currently have fairly easily customizable tires, exhaust, audio, glass, and various 'case mods'.

What we need is user-interchangable chasis, engine, drive train, cab. That'd be cool.
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by BiggerIsBetter · 2004-04-19 04:26 · Score: 1

Y'know what really sucks about that story? The magic black box probably contained about $40 worth of parts, and the defective one was probably woth around $0.30. And the box was probably swapped with a previously repaired one - I bet they didn't give you the old one back after removing it, eh?

--
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by terrymr · 2004-04-19 04:32 · Score: 1

Weird ... those systems are supposed to give you normal braking in the event that a problem develops with the ABS breaking.
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by dasmegabyte · 2004-04-19 04:38 · Score: 1

Or maybe more of them will think to use a $.40 inline fuse. Stupid.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by jpetts · 2004-04-19 04:39 · Score: 1

I'm 20 miles from claiming my lottery ticket on my way to marrying Britney Spears . You could say I'm bitter.

I'd say you should feel lucky, not bitter...

--
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by KingOfBLASH · 2004-04-19 04:39 · Score: 1

Well, it did. The brakes worked in the sense that if I hit them, they would stop the car. However, I had to hit them hard (possibly because of the fact that they were no longer powered), and I didn't feel safe on the winter streets of Buffalo (think snow 10 months a year) without ABS. So, I could have gone without them, but I didn't feel it was safe. Brakes are just one of those systems where, if anything looks to be messing up, I'm getting it fixed. If my AC went out, hey, no problem, it's too cold out to need AC anyways. But brakes? I needed those!
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by schapman · 2004-04-19 04:43 · Score: 1

heh.. ive got a focus that I was putting some stereo stuff in w/ a friend (who is a pro installer), one wire got pinched under a cover on the right side (we had popped the cover off the lower door edge to run some wires, saw a bunch there and put it back **note** those wires are also supposed to be in a conduit u can clearly see there, but werent... causeing the pinch). That one pinched wire cause the entire car to be non-functional, no computer codes, no lights.. nothing. Had to take it to the dealer, and it cost me $450CAD for them to spend all day tracking down one wire. And even though they admitted to me that the wire was probably run wrong from the factory, because we were "modifying" the car, it wasnt under warranty. Thanx ford.

--
Wouldnt you like to be a pepper too?
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by microcars · 2004-04-19 04:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

some of you are familiar with the SMART car, it's not really available in the USA, but it's all over Europe. It's pretty disposable, they already have an "end of life" program for them.
These things are highly desireable in the US partly because they are not available, a friend bought a rolling SMART chassis (no drivetrain) off eBay from the now-defunct eMotion. He has since purchased all the other bits (engine, drivetrain, etc) and is now trying to put it together but he's stumped because he cannot get the SEVEN computers to talk to each other. He is no stranger to working on cars either. And once he screws it up, he can't exactly take it in to a "dealer" either since both he AND the car are in the US.

--
I like microcars
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by kannibal_klown · 2004-04-19 04:50 · Score: 1

Tell me about it.

I accidentally broke the headlight knob of my dash. That sucked. But I was like, ti's just a knob, right?

I took it to 2 Buick dealers. Both came to the same conclusion: to fix the broken knob, they had to replace the entire dash component for that side of the car. They said $300 just for the part, and labor would take a while.

Now, both Dealers have been pretty honest with me in the past when I've come across a problem that my dad (or myself) could not handle. But that was rediculous. $300 for a broken knob?

So we used a small piece of steel and epoxy, and re-attached the broken knob to it's base. It works perfectly, everything is conceiled, it's flush against the dashl; a perfect fix.

Took about maybe 2 hours and a couple cents worth of epoxy.
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by pinkocommie · 2004-04-19 04:56 · Score: 1

Get some investors together and try it. I was thinking of the same thing recently (looking for a new car :-D) and if the new 'platform' was reasonably competitive and obviously cheap parts and plug and play ;) parts etc should be a massive success.
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by shepd · 2004-04-19 04:58 · Score: 1

>However, I had to hit them hard (possibly because of the fact that they were no longer powered), and I didn't feel safe on the winter streets of Buffalo (think snow 10 months a year) without ABS.

Oddly enough, I do recall having watched a show which demonstrated how a good driver can stop quicker with threshold braking on ice and snow rather than ABS... Here's a group that agrees.

That's helped justify me being a cheap bastard. ;-)

--
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by jred · 2004-04-19 05:27 · Score: 1

Well, if you want a hot rod, there is. Pick a frame, body, engine & transmission, bolt it all together, voila!

--

jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by agallagh42 · 2004-04-19 05:45 · Score: 1

He'll be a little closer to a dealer this fall, when the Smart goes on sale in Canada. He'll have to wait until 2006 for local help though...

--
Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by nevek · 2004-04-19 06:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Also sometimes a pinched wire can short out and fry some unfused computer.

Stupid Ford Indeed,,,
The Focus's Firewall is Plastic in many spots!, Right behind the drivers legs at one place,,, just hope that flywheel dosent explode!
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by schapman · 2004-04-19 08:10 · Score: 1

heh.. well apparently all it took was some electrical tape to fix.. everything else was fine. Just $450 in labour to find the problem.

--
Wouldnt you like to be a pepper too?
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by KingOfBLASH · 2004-04-19 09:29 · Score: 1

That was somewhat tongue in cheek. We probably get about 7 or 8 months of snow, but it feels like 10 most years.
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by M-G · 2004-04-19 09:53 · Score: 1

Or the box was filled with potting compound so that it could never be repaired on a component level, only replaced.
Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! by Buran · 2004-04-19 10:00 · Score: 1

The radio on VWs also goes through many of the car's computerized systems. The wire that is responsible for this is the "K-wire". Many shops will not even try to hook up their diagnostic computer to a 1999-up VW with an aftermarket stereo because many people hook up this wire incorrectly and so the diagnostic machine would get fried.

The presence of an aftermarket stereo will also apparently cause new VWs to fail the OBDII-diagnostics-based emissions test here in St. Louis County. Fortunately, I like my European Blaupunkt-made VW OEM "Gamma" radio just fine.

You probably (or whoever installed it) mis-wired the K-wire or the Lexus equivalent, though I don't really think it's your fault as it's quite easy to overlook the issue or just plain not know about it (I bet the stereo manual didn't mention it).

Though given how good the stereos are in Lexus automobiles these days, I don't know why anyone would replace the stereo. I think they use Nakamichi - at least they do in the SC430. If the stereo is that good, then why run the risk of having your dealer refuse to hook up their scan tool, your car failing an emissions test, and other hassles? (I realize this isn't your problem, as you get paid to just do what the owners want; it's the owners I don't understand.)

--
i am a soviet space shuttle

I thought disposable cars were already out there.. by castleguardian · 2004-04-19 04:02 · Score: 5, Funny

...Pintos, for example. Problem with them was that they disposed of the owners too...

--
--- Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.

Disposable cars? by cubicledrone · 2004-04-19 04:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

No. Not as long as the average television-advertised car costs about $35,000 (Five years of $400 payments, and you STILL don't own it)

Perhaps they could make the cars simpler by removing the DVD players? Are people so bored that they must be watching movies/television constantly? How about READING a BOOK?

--
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.

Re:Disposable cars? by jcostantino · 2004-04-19 04:05 · Score: 5, Funny

I'll try that tomorrow on my way into work. :)

--
Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
Re:Disposable cars? by mopslik · 2004-04-19 04:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Are people so bored that they must be watching movies/television constantly? How about READING a BOOK?

I'd rather they WATCHED the ROAD.
Re:Disposable cars? by cubicledrone · 2004-04-19 04:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes. Are the people RIDING in the car so bored, NOT the people DRIVING, but the people RIDING in the car.

Thank you.

--
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Re:Disposable cars? by the_other_one · 2004-04-19 04:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Good Idea.
We'll put an eBook reader in the center of the steering wheel in our next model.

--
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Re:Disposable cars? by Ruprecht+the+Monkeyb · 2004-04-19 04:12 · Score: 5, Funny

Hmmm.
DVD -- one hand to hold my coffee, one hand to gratify self while watching DVD porn, one hand to hold cell phone, one hand to gesture rudely at other drivers. Hands free to steer: -2

Book -- one hand to hold my coffee, one hand to hold the book, one hand to turn the page, one hand to hold cell phone, one hand to gesture rudely at other drivers. Hands free to steer: -3

Clearly, car DVDs are safer than books.
Re:Disposable cars? by Danse · 2004-04-19 04:17 · Score: 1

How the bloody hell would reading a book be less dangerous than talking on a cell phone? You don't have to be looking at the phone to use it.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:Disposable cars? by Danse · 2004-04-19 04:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

I get so tired of hearing people complain about TVs or DVD players in cars. They are almost always installed in the ceiling between the front seats and facing the rear, or are installed in the backs of the front seats. They are there for passengers to watch. Usually for children to keep them entertained on trips. Hell, it could almost be considered a safety feature. At least if they are watching TV or playing video games they might not be so bored that they end up fighting with each other and have mom or dad trying to look back at them and yell at them instead of driving.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:Disposable cars? by Politburo · 2004-04-19 04:26 · Score: 1

Some people find reading in the car to cause motion sickness. Luckily, I never suffered from this on our family's drives from NJ to FL.
Re:Disposable cars? by Tablizer · 2004-04-19 04:40 · Score: 1

[re: DVD players] Yes. Are the people RIDING in the car so bored, NOT the people DRIVING, but the people RIDING in the car.

Some old-timers complain that the new batch of kids are too spoiled, and thus need constant entertainment, such as in-car DVD's.

However, before the seat-belt, laws kids could move, squirm, and play all about the car while the car was in motion. This kept them occupied to some extent. But when the seatbelt laws required kids be belted, they often got tired of sitting still for hours. Thus, the DVD player compensates for lack of mobility.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Disposable cars? by Jeremy+Erwin · 2004-04-19 04:41 · Score: 1

You let your children watch adult dvds in the car? That's certainly a bit libertine. In my car, only the driver and front passenger screens show adult content-- the kids get books.
Re:Disposable cars? by corbettw · 2004-04-19 04:41 · Score: 2, Funny

DVD -- one hand to hold my coffee, one hand to gratify self while watching DVD porn, one hand to hold cell phone, one hand to gesture rudely at other drivers.

Wow, that's a lot of hands. Zaphod, is that you?

--
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Re:Disposable cars? by Jeremy+Erwin · 2004-04-19 05:13 · Score: 1

Obviously you're somewhat unfamiliar with last month's hysteria over adult dvds in cars.
Re:Disposable cars? by Jason+Hood · 2004-04-19 06:37 · Score: 1

Well seriously, anyone that actually purchases a _car_ over 25k is simply irresponsible. Unless you are buying a truck to haul/tow crap you are wasting your money. I read a financial book one and one of the top then things you can do to become a "senior millionaire" (senior citizen with 1M bucks for retirement) is never to purchase a new car. You are better off purchasing a low to mid-range used american/japanese car 2-3 years old and fixing it up as needed. You _will_ save money in the long run.

--
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
Re:Disposable cars? by Money+for+Nothin' · 2004-04-19 10:37 · Score: 1

Er, I read Perl books on my Handspring Visor during my daily commute...

--

Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Re:Disposable cars? by loraksus · 2004-04-19 18:23 · Score: 1

, believe it or not, a great way to meet people.

Whether they pee on you is a different story.

--
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/

Support your classic car restorer by confused+one · 2004-04-19 04:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

This seems like a good solution. For the cost of a new car, you can have a custom done, including a modern fuel injected drivetrain.

Another bonus: a back-yard mechanic can work on it...

Re:Support your classic car restorer by i.r.id10t · 2004-04-19 04:16 · Score: 1

Until the parts you need are starting to be made of unobtainium... but that is for true restoration. You wanna make a kit car? Lots of fiberglass body options for old VW pans...

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Re:Support your classic car restorer by Tablizer · 2004-04-19 04:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

For the cost of a new car, you can have a custom done

Unless you factor in the cost of lawsuits. One mistake leading to a spine-crunching accident can wipe you out.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by Xzzy · 2004-04-19 04:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

Never been able to quantify it, but I've had some classic car owners claim that the pollution that their older car produces for the rest of it's useful life will still be less than the pollution created by the manufacturing process for a single modern car.

Intuitively, that makes a bit of sense. All these modern composites and exotic metals can't be clean to work with. Though I suppose it'd be easier for a factory to contain the pollutants.

Would be neat to see a study on it. I wonder what the current situation would look like if manufacturing was included in the pollution scale, and compared against recycling old vehicles.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by confused+one · 2004-04-19 04:31 · Score: 1

I'd make the argument that a true restoration is good for museum/show cars only.
You simply can't (or wouldn't want to) drive a car using it's original systems. You re-use the body / chassis & put modern brakes, suspension and steering under it. You should also replace the engine & drive train with modern equipment. That way, the components are available and you're chances of catastrophic failure are lower.
Generally speaking, if you look around on the web you'll find plenty of sources for body parts for classics and conversion kits to update all the key systems.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by jhoffoss · 2004-04-19 04:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Also consider the amount of pollution that went into the air forty years ago to make that classic car. The process may have been simpler, but pollution control was an afterthought at best, in factories and in the cars. I won't buy the statement that it's more environmentally expensive to make and drive a zero-emissions car than it was to make and drive a '57 Belair.

--
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by 74nova · 2004-04-19 04:38 · Score: 1

oh BS, just try to make a lawsuit stick on Boyd or Jesse James, whoever. if i run a shop, i make no claim as to having improved the cars safety. you honestly think that is a concern?

--
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
Re:Support your classic car restorer by Unregistered · 2004-04-19 04:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

But the Belair already exists. The damage is done, it cant be undone.

However, i think the best argument against worring about emissions of classics is that all the classics in the city don't produce as many pollutants as one old dump truck that is emempt from pollution laws becasue it pollutes so much.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by macsuibhne · 2004-04-19 04:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

I can quantify it for you, but you'll have to look elsewhere for proof: a car takes approximately as much energy to build as it consumes in fuel in its design lifetime. One guy I used to work with knew enough real-world engineering to do a back of the envelope calculation involving the cost of steel manufacture*, the weight of a car, and the price of fuel over a 120,000 mile lifetime mileage to show that this statement is broadly true with these simplifying assumptions. (* he may have simply used the weight & cost of coal as the energy cost, and made the simplifying assumption that the energy cost of all other components could be take to be approximately the same as steel),

Tony.

--
-- "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- Juvenal
Re:Support your classic car restorer by karnal · 2004-04-19 04:44 · Score: 1

Of course, you're assuming that 2 built to the hilt cars will be crashing into each other. There are so many more factors....

I drive a 78 Cougar on occasion - I bought it about 7 years ago, and just have it around for a spare car in case our vehicles break down etc. But, against even my Grand Marquis, it would probably still be drivable after a "typical" accident.

--
Karnal
Re:Support your classic car restorer by 74nova · 2004-04-19 04:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

but that doesnt matter. the car has already been made. his point is that if he drives his classic, he wont need another car to be made for him.

will you buy the statement that its more environmentally expensive to make and drive a (near)zero-emissions car than to not make said car and drive another that was already made 40 years ago(thus eliminating the ability to prevent its manufacturing)? if i drive older cars with new fuel injected engines, i eliminate the need for new cars to be made for me. i think thats better.

whether the original statement that its cleaner to drive an old car than to make a new one is debateable. my point is that the cost of making the old car is irrelevant because it cant be eliminated while the cost of making a new one can.

--
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
Re:Support your classic car restorer by dasmegabyte · 2004-04-19 04:50 · Score: 3, Informative

As a backyard mechanic who works on both a 1998 VW Passat and a 1973 VW SuperBeetle, I'd have to say that the Passat is the easier to work with.

All this "backyard mechanics can't fix today's cars" talk is just nonsense. Modern parts are lightweight and precision manufactured. There's no banging or clanging to get parts off, no rusted bolts, no tweaking of the carburetor and timing. There's no cables to break, and very little danger of an improperly timed engine pinging itself into oblivion.

Cases in point: the Passat stopped firing on one cylinder. There were three things that could have caused this: a broken plug wire (it was fine), a broken plug (brand new and tested fine) or a problem with the ignition control module. Testing the ICM showed cylinder three was receiving no signal. $100 later, I had a new module which installed in about five minutes.

When I had a similar problem with the Beetle, I had the same three possible sources (plug, wire or ignition control). However, the ignition control system, being mechanical, was far more difficult to troubleshoot. I ended up replacing pretty much everything...the distributor, the condensor, the solenoid...and even then, I spent the better half of an afternoon tweaking it.

Of course, working on the Beetle is more FUN, because the endless possibilities of a custom and delicate relationships between components make it more satisfying.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:Support your classic car restorer by router · 2004-04-19 04:51 · Score: 1

Dude, I can't even trust "normal" mechanics to replace wheel bearings on a '69 Camaro. I don't trust anyone to work on my cars, unless its a new car at the dealer under warranty. As soon as its off warranty, it'll never see the inside of a shop again. Most mechanics are brain dead, and for the difficulty of finding a non-brain dead mechanic I can do it myself. Notice I said difficulty not cost; I have no problem paying their rate if they can do the damn job. But finding even minimally competent mechanics to work on a car is insanely difficult.

andy
Re:Support your classic car restorer by shepd · 2004-04-19 05:02 · Score: 1

Five words for the invoice:

"As sold with all faults"

--
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Re:Support your classic car restorer by U.I.D+754625 · 2004-04-19 05:06 · Score: 1

Let me guess, you're American, right?

--

//Blessed are they that run around in circles, for they shall be known as wheels.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by theguru · 2004-04-19 05:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Another point in keeping the exising car on the road is simply to keep it out of the junk yard. Most junk yards are nasty places, with old batteries, old gas tanks rusting out, old tires slowly dry rotting.

Old cars are usually made of some heavy duty metal that will rust away for years. The bodies are filled with lead instead of plastic body fillers (Bondo). A patient owner who takes care of an old car and keeps it out of these yards is doing the environment a favor. Old car owners are also excelent recyclers! A lot of parts aren't made any more, and they are the ones hitting these junk yards, reusing these old parts. If a modern car was too complicated to keep on the road in the first place, how many people will be disasembling them for parts 10, 20, or 30 years down the line?

As for gas efficiency, my 1965 Volvo 1800S gets in the high 20's MPG, even in the city, with a pair of SU carbs. No computer to be found anywhere on that car. I could probably rejet the carbs to get in the low 30's, but I'm not sure of the powerband compromises that would cause.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by Tablizer · 2004-04-19 05:23 · Score: 1

oh BS, just try to make a lawsuit stick on Boyd or Jesse James, whoever. if i run a shop, i make no claim as to having improved the cars safety. you honestly think that is a concern?

It is impossible to sign away all recovery rights. If you make a flagrant mistake and it kills or maims somebody, you will probably be liable for at least some of it. Jesse simply has been lucky or very careful so far.

(At least in California)

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by babyrat · 2004-04-19 05:31 · Score: 1

The point is that the pollution has already been created - if you save a car from the scrap heap instead of buying a new one, then you skip the whole 'manufacturing process pollution' again, not to mention saving the landfill space.

Kind of like getting a puppy from the pound instead of the pet shop...well, not exactly, or perhaps nothing like that at all...but you should still get puppies from the pound!
Re:Support your classic car restorer by EchoMirage · 2004-04-19 05:32 · Score: 1

Intuitively, that makes a bit of sense. All these modern composites and exotic metals can't be clean to work with. Though I suppose it'd be easier for a factory to contain the pollutants.

Correct. Chris King is an ultra-high-end bicycle parts company that runs an extremely clean production facility. Their custom-designed anozidizing process releases absolute NO waste water, which is remarkable if you know anodizing. They've also figured out how to re-use a lot of waste products in their manufacturing lines, thereby saving them money and greatly reducing the environmental impact.

Exotic materials can be polluting, but only if the factories let them be. It's possible to do "new manufacturing" in a very green way.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by nanter · 2004-04-19 06:20 · Score: 1

What you're not accounting for is where those pollutants will be ending up.
During the creation of modern cars, manufacturing plants are able to dispose of many pollutants in an environmentally sound manner or render the byproducts into less toxic compounds, instead of just releasing them wholesale into the air.
That classic car that continues to pollute, however, is dumping all its pollutants directly into the atmosphere, worsening air quality and impacting the climate and those around it directly and immediately.
-Nanter
Re:Support your classic car restorer by jhoffoss · 2004-04-19 06:52 · Score: 1

Agreed. But my point is that *even though* the Belair has been manufactured, at some point, the environmental cost of that Belair being driven will surpass the cost of manufacturing a new zero-emissions vehicle.
Before anyone pounces on this statement, consider:
* Most classic car owners do not drive their classic from day to day. Hence, much slower rate that they approach this break-even point. These cars typically are trophies anyway, so really, in my mind, are exempt from this discussion.
* People driving "classics" from day to day are probably instead driving junkers. These are the ones I'm targetting more. We can lump dump trucks & lawn mowers in with this group too, I suppose.
I had another point but couldn't type fast enough. But anyway, the "but it's too late" argument doesn't work. An individual getting the last few miles out of a very old car only pushes back the amount of time until purchasing a new/newer used vehicle, incurring this environmental expense to manufacture. But instead of incurring that cost sooner by staying in a newer vehicle, more pollutants may have been spewed.

--
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by AK+Marc · 2004-04-19 06:55 · Score: 1

I won't buy the statement that it's more environmentally expensive to make and drive a zero-emissions car than it was to make and drive a '57 Belair.

Good. No one said that. They said that, given that an old car exists, whatever that old car may be, it is better for the environment to keep the old car on the road than ban it and force the person driving it to buy a new one. The cost of keeping a car running is small compared to making a zero-emissions car (and all the toxic by-products for making that ZEV).

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Support your classic car restorer by jhoffoss · 2004-04-19 06:56 · Score: 1

If you modify an old car to use fuel injection, add a catalytic converter, etc. then yes, most assuredly, you are helping. But the point I was getting at, is that a) you're probably not driving a 40 year old car day to day. If you are, that car puts out emissions. At some point the car pours out more garbage into the environment than the factory to make a new car. Remember these factories control their emissions, the same way the new cars do. A 40 year old car does not.
At the same time, and to cede to your point, perhaps this break even point I speak of is beyond 40 years of normal use of your classic/junker/whatever.

--
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by jhoffoss · 2004-04-19 07:00 · Score: 1

1) the reusability factor is great, but these old cars also provide much more reusable scrap than the plastic/disposable cars of today. So in a sense, getting them off the road sooner may mean saving that much in mining/manufacturing the parts for a new car, making that new car even cheaper environmentally, than if you keep driving the old car.
2) I bet your Volvo's emissions are through the roof. My brand new Subaru gets roughly the same mileage, but I bet I have an equal or better powerband, my car is lighter, safer, and is zero-emission. Granted, this could be a big assumption on my part.
I'm just playing devil's advocate more than actually disagreeing with you.

--
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by slackerboy · 2004-04-19 07:08 · Score: 1

Actually, this has been studied and quantified. Specifically, see:

"Kim, H. C., G. A. Keoleian, S. Spatari and J. W. Bulkley. Optimizing Vehicle Life Using Life Cycle Energy Analysis and Dynamic Replacement Modeling. in Proceedings of the 2000 Total Life Cycle Conference, P-353. Detroit, MI: SAE International, 2000, Paper No. 2000-01-1499, 241-250"

This was work produced by the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan.

As I recall, the conclusion on how often to replace a car really depended on what you were most concerned about (energy, air pollution, etc.), but it worked out that you should probably be replacing the car at least every ten years because of advances in technology.

In general, the use phase will dominate both from an energy and a pollution standpoint.

--
Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
Re:Support your classic car restorer by avandesande · 2004-04-19 07:40 · Score: 1

put a 300$ holly fuel injection kit on the car and it will get good gas mileage and pollute much less.

--
love is just extroverted narcissism
Re:Support your classic car restorer by M-G · 2004-04-19 10:04 · Score: 1

That's true, to some extent. However, the environmental issues of manufacturing go far beyond what takes place in the factory.

There's mining for the raw materials, be they steel, aluminium, or precious metals for the pollution controls, not to mention oil for plastics. All have an environmental impact and use energy. There's the shipping of those materials. Even if you use recycled materials to avoid mining, there is still transportation, and the costs of recycling that material into something usable.

Then, no matter how clean the manufacturing process, you're still using lots of energy, and will still have waste products to dispose of.

Sure, a much older, non-catalyst car will spew out quite a bit of local pollution, but there are plenty of now 'classic' cars that came equipped with pollution controls, and even EFI.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by M-G · 2004-04-19 10:06 · Score: 1

Modern parts are lightweight and precision manufactured. There's no banging or clanging to get parts off, no rusted bolts, no tweaking of the carburetor and timing. There's no cables to break

Wait until the Passat is 30 years old, and then you can compare them for ease of repair.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by confused+one · 2004-04-19 10:37 · Score: 1

I'm suggesting you get a classic car and actually drive it. I'm also suggesting you do a FULL restoration on it first.
There's no reason you can't put a more modern drive train in an older car.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by confused+one · 2004-04-19 10:43 · Score: 1

Well, I agree that many mechanics shouldn't be allowed near tools...
I do my own work -- even on the newer car ('95) I own. I know a few local shop that I'll trust to do the work I can't or won't do; and, I'll only let these shops work on my vehicles.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by winwar · 2004-04-19 11:10 · Score: 1

Currently manufacturers are starting to do life cycle assessments for their products. Basically a cradle to grave analyis of environmental 'performance'. Kind of interesting to read actually.

Found these studies for a geology course (impact of SUV's - mainly how big a hole do you have to dig to produce one). They try to quantify a lot of stuff-energy during different phases, materials production, manufacturing, use, end of life, materials used, outputs (pollutants), and so on.

In one study, based on a real car (actually an average of three cars-1995 Intrepid/Lumina/Taurus), 84% of the energy consumed (974 Gigajoules total) was during use. Use generated 87% of the CO2, 94% of the CO, 90% of the NOx, 62% of the SOx. Assumed a life of 120,000 miles.
Manufacturing and materials production was 14% of the energy. 65% of the particulates, 34% of the SOx. These numbers come from the USCAR AMP Project, more specifically a SAE paper #982160.

They account for a lot of the processes that go in to making fuel, raw materials, etc. Impressive work. Probably significant potential error.

Unfortunately, you really can't compare it to a old car without some numbers :(
Re:Support your classic car restorer by misterTreellama · 2004-04-19 15:36 · Score: 1

Although I consider myself more of a car-person than a computer person, I see a striking similarity to OS problems. I dual boot win2k and linux, and there is a similar problem solving strategy:

Windows - something's not working. Uninstall the program and reinstall it. Failing that, reinstall windows. Problem solved.

Linux - something's not working. Begin a massive search for device drivers and start downloading fresh rpms. Since everything is interdependant, it may take hours to locate the correct builds. At some point you will likely be compiling something. In the end, it works, and immense satisfaction rolls over you like a tidalwave. Payoff!

--
"Let the Spanish keep it, it's a sh*thole," we said, but you had to have your goddamned orange juice.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by GigsVT · 2004-04-20 00:55 · Score: 1

What the hell is a "Zero-emissions vehicle"?

Is that like a perpetual motion machine? They seem to have something in common, though I can't quite put my finger on it.

Oh yeah, neither can ever exist!

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by jhoffoss · 2004-04-20 04:10 · Score: 1

Therein lies my biggest problem, though...I don't think I'd be comfortable driving something I took apart and reassembled. I'm handy, but as a youth, I ALWAYS had left-over parts when I investigated how some device worked, then attempted to reassemble.
I wouldn't want to be moving at 70 mph in a 2 ton steel box that I had spare parts from, when those spare parts prove how useful they would have been. Maybe when I get older and have more time & patience for this sort of thing, though...

--
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by jhoffoss · 2004-04-20 04:12 · Score: 1

My bad, I meant to say Low emissions vehicle. Wasn't paying that much attention. But I think everything I said still has validity. Not that I'm right, but I think I make a few noteworthy points.
You're all free to disagree, though.

--
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by confused+one · 2004-04-20 04:42 · Score: 1

I guess I grew up working on cars; and, now it's second nature. I'm very careful about the work I do because, I know it all boils down to safety. Some work I won't do simply because I don't have the proper tools.
Re:Support your classic car restorer by confused+one · 2004-04-20 04:47 · Score: 1

You're off by an order of magnitude. The cheapest Holley fuel injection systems run around $1300. A full port injection system with manifold will run you close to $3000.
Of course, if you're diligent... With an oxygen sensor to monitor the state of tune you can keep your carburetor pretty close to ideal. It requires some effort. You'll have to adjust the jetting whenever you change altitude significantly, as the temperature changes (summer/winter), etc.

When did this start? by teamhasnoi · 2004-04-19 04:03 · Score: 2, Funny

According to my wife, every car I've had is too expensive to fix.

Thank you! Thank you! That would be post 2000! w00t!

Problem solved by spellraiser · 2004-04-19 04:03 · Score: 2

The best people to find are those who have worked in the IT [information technology] industry.

Woohoo - IT can people can finally have jobs again!

--
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots

Independence Day... by MosesJones · 2004-04-19 04:03 · Score: 2, Funny

Ahhhh so THAT is why the spaceship had an RS232 port.... everything had to be accessible via a Mac to enable proper support.

And I thought it was rubbish....

--
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi

Re:Independence Day... by Jeremy+Erwin · 2004-04-19 04:27 · Score: 1

I thought the mac had a pair of rs422s...

Keep it in the family by darth_MALL · 2004-04-19 04:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm sure a portion of this trend is a ploy to keep the repairs of auto's in-house. A Ford dealership, for example, makes a LOT of money doing repairs. If they can force a clentele, its gravy money, of which a chunk goes back to the Ford headquarters. Seems like a sane progression, now that manufacture costs for these specialty components are probably WAY down for the manufacturers.

Re:Keep it in the family by Thud457 · 2004-04-19 04:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

This also ties in with Ford (and other manufacturers?...) buying up junkyards to dry up the independent supply of repair parts.
This is a real concern for those who maintain classics.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:Keep it in the family by Curunir_wolf · 2004-04-19 04:58 · Score: 2, Interesting
I'm sure a portion of this trend is a ploy to keep the repairs of auto's in-house.
It also allows them to end-of-life cars sooner, without the built-in-obsolecence they tried in the 70's (which nearly destroyed the US automobile industry).
We recently had to get rid of a not-very-new Ford Aerostar because of this issue. Ford stopped making them, and don't have a decent replacement. But the van started hesitating and idling rough, sometimes cutting out at stoplights. Our regular mechanic could not get enough information from his diagnostic machine (apparently the problem was in one of the computer modules), and suggested we try the dealer. Probably will be expensive, we thought, but OK.
What did the dealer do? Refused to work on it because "it's too old"!!!!
At that point, our options were to junk it, or start replacing (rather expensive) control modules until it works (hopefully). And if any of those modules require adjustment on-board, there won't be any way to fix it at all.
So, this is double-bonus for the manufacturers. The dealers corner the market on repairs (how long before the prices double and triple?), and when they decide you've had the car long enough, you're forced to buy a new one.
I can just see the blue book listings for these cars now:
2015 Retail Value - Ford Cobina
- 2008 model - $13,500
- 2007 model - $12,000
- 2006 model - $0 (obsolete)
--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Keep it in the family by kmankmankman2001 · 2004-04-19 06:45 · Score: 1

The only money that FoMoCo would receive from that Ford dealer's service dept revenue would be the money spent on FoMoCo parts. Ford isn't getting anything out of the labor dollars or any other non-FoMoCo parts sold. Remember, dealers are independent businesses from the manufacturers.

--
"The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
Re:Keep it in the family by dfenstrate · 2004-04-19 08:24 · Score: 1

Your ford dealership was run by pricks. My local dealership fixed an odd problem on my 14 year old crown vic last year quickly & expertly.

--
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Re:Keep it in the family by M-G · 2004-04-19 10:18 · Score: 1

What did the dealer do? Refused to work on it because "it's too old"!!!!

Not terribly uncommon. Most of the cars coming through dealer service departments are only a few years old. So the dealer heavily invests in training their people on the current models. Now, the Aerostar was still made until about 1994, so it seems a bit premature to stop servicing them.

But consider that for many older cars, the current shop staff at the dealership wasn't even working there when that car was sold. Also, there's an issue of risk management. An older car is more likely to have more problems lurking below the surface. You take the car in, get problem A fixed, and problem B crops up. You then go back to the dealer and try to get them to cover that. A friend of mine is a service manager for a car dealer, and this sort of thing happens all the time. So for many shops, it just isn't worth the hassle.

As in nearly any product these days, there's probably a group of people who have started a web site or mailing list about your particular vehicle, and can often times be of more help in fixing the odd problems than your independent mechanic, who can't focus all his efforts on learning every quirk of many different cars.

Recycling by Deraj+DeZine · 2004-04-19 04:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

Nothing to do with bikes, but are companies investigating the ability to recycle cars in a fairly efficient fashion? Is it even possible to do so? It seems that this would prevent the Grand Canyon in the US from filling up with old H2s and whatnot but still not cost a ton like repairing complex cars.

Anyone heard anything about this?

--
True story.

Re:Recycling by AlecC · 2004-04-19 04:07 · Score: 3, Informative

Yes. VW at least are investigating recycling fairly intensively: they are under strong pressure to be non-polluting in their home market. I think many of the others are doing the same. But don't expect much scrap value from your totalled car - this is more about saving you a disposal charge rather than getting any residual value from the wreck.

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Re:Recycling by wcrowe · 2004-04-19 04:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, I think automobiles deserve a "greener" reputation than they usually get. Much of an old or wrecked auto gets recycled whether in the form of used parts, or scrap metal. That really doesn't happen with other big-ticket items like refrigerators, washers, dryers, water-heaters, PC's, stereos, etc., etc.

--
Proverbs 21:19
Re:Recycling by bug-eyed+monster · 2004-04-19 04:21 · Score: 1

Looks like the European Community has already put the wheels in motion for this:

In 2000 the European Parliament "approved a directive that shifts responsibility for the environmental impact of a vehicle over its entire life cycle--from design to disposal--squarely onto the manufacturers' shoulders. Some requirements--a near-ban on the use of toxic heavy metals, and mandated recycling rates of 80% and 85% for cars going on the market after 2006 and 2015, respectively--are far-reaching but feasible."

Another story about BMW's efforts. There are lots more.
Re:Recycling by theskipper · 2004-04-19 04:25 · Score: 1

One of the main reasons I bought a Honda Pilot was because they advertised it as being 90% recyclable. Maybe all newer models are too and I got sucked in by marketing. If there isn't a comprehensive recycling program in place now then hopefully there will be in 7 or 8 years when it's time for a new one.

So it made me feel a little less guilty for buying an SUV, other environmental impacts excluded.
Re:Recycling by Ralph+Wiggam · 2004-04-19 04:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

The problem with recycling cars is that they're made from too many different materials. It's easy to recycle a can or bottle because it's a pure substance. What they do with cars is put them through a shredder. It's a massive machine that rips a car into pieces the size of a quarter. The pieces are then sorted and recycled. It's not super efficient, but it's better than what they used to do. In the 70s, scrap yards would buy dead cars, pour gasoline on them and burn off the plastic parts.

-B
Re:Recycling by Tablizer · 2004-04-19 04:33 · Score: 1

but are companies investigating the ability to recycle cars in a fairly efficient fashion?

Old cars are often shipped to South American countries where they are rebuilt or recycled. However, they are usually not exported back to the US because of safety regulations and related inspection mandates regarding rebuilt vehicles.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Recycling by anti_analog · 2004-04-19 04:45 · Score: 1

I could be wrong, since this information comes from auto companies, but supposedly cars are the most recycled products out there. Most of the metals and perhaps even plastics and glass are usually recycled from totalled cars and stuff, again, supposedly. Seems reasonable to me...

--
you cannot dodge the quad laser. jumping is useless.
Re:Recycling by dasmegabyte · 2004-04-19 04:54 · Score: 1

Uh, automotive recycling has been going on since the day after the first car accident. Is it efficient? You betcha. They start by selling off whole sections of the car in "clips," for accident repairs. Then, they sell everything else from the seats to the individual bolts. You can search for them online or call up your local junkyard, guarantee they have a database and encyclopedic knowledge of cross purposes. Finally, when nothings left of a car, they squash it, and sell the scrap metal for a pretty penney.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:Recycling by AK+Marc · 2004-04-19 07:03 · Score: 1

They have ways to get a better recycled percentage (requiring more labor). If you pull the carpet, you can recycle it. Pulling the carpet costs more than you get by recycling it. If you pull the dash, you can recycle it. It costs more to pull the dash than recycle it. If you pull the pieces off it now, somewhere around 60-80% of a car is currently recyclable. However, it is much more cost efficient to shred it, us a magnet to pull out the metal, and throw away all the non-metal.

The recycling programs are trying to give more incentive to put forth the effort to get the higher recycling percentages. Of course, vehicle design can also influence the cost of recycling. They are begining to address both material use to improve the % that can be recycled, as well as minimize cost to recycle the dissimilar pieces.

--
Learn to love Alaska

How will this affect MTV's Pimp My Ride? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 04:04 · Score: 2, Funny

Will there be less ride pimping the future? This concerns me, because I think all cars need shoe racks, waterfalls, and Playstation's (Whatever the current version) in the back. You also can't have enough DVD players or speakers in a car.

So, what they are saying is by RCO · 2004-04-19 04:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

I could have just taken that job as a mechanic straight out of High School and built my skills up to the point that I could be making good money in the automotive industry rather than spent all those years and all that money in college to get to the same point? I'm feeling a little depressed.

--
'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'

Re:So, what they are saying is by millahtime · 2004-04-19 04:10 · Score: 1

"I could have just taken that job as a mechanic straight out of High School and built my skills up to the point that I could be making good money in the automotive industry rather than spent all those years and all that money in college to get to the same point? I'm feeling a little depressed."

DOn't feel so bad. Hopefully you got to party with all the good lookin ladies in college. Plus, a desk job is so much easier on your body than being a mechanic.

--
Evolution or ID?
Re:So, what they are saying is by RCO · 2004-04-19 04:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hopefully you got to party with all the good lookin ladies in college.

Ok, now I'm more depressed...

a desk job is so much easier on your body

True, but with a boss that likes to point out 'You should be glad you have a job at all...' on a regular basis, the mechanics job is starting to look good.

--
'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
Re:So, what they are saying is by trukfixer · 2004-04-19 04:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

Wanna Trade?? Im an automotive mechianic with an overwhelming desire to get into the IT/Programming/Security field... Being a car tech ain't all it's cracked up to be.. Sure we're "officially" paid $18 an hour, but we work near to 60 hours a week in a physically demanding career field, you should see my hands and arms. sharp little bolts, very tight spaces you have to fit into, knuckles ripped to shreds , burns from hot exhaust manifolds, and for all of that, if the shop is SLOW, I might take home $200 on a slow week... cause we only get paid the hours of labor we actually SELL.. (work 60 hours, and get in maybe 5 cars to work on 2 hours per car- you get paid 10 hours labor = $180 gross wage for that week...)

now are you SURE you wanna be an auto mechanic???

if so, contact me and I'll trade my job for your job faster than you can download a 1K webpage on OC1 fiber.
Re:So, what they are saying is by Evil+MarNuke · 2004-04-19 04:39 · Score: 1

I went the mechanic route straight out of high school. By my second year I was making close to 30k while most of my friends were broke college students. If I stuck at it for another year, I would be making 60-70k which is the same as doing IT work. There are some guys who are making almost 90k doing that line of work. The down side is you have to work 50 hours weeks for it since everything is comission based.

I got out of it because I didn't like where the industy was going. Cars that would be repaired 10 years eariler was sent to the junk yard. Most of the work being done at service center was maintaince and the body shop was busy patching up small dents. No one really cared about the car which was depressing. I would rather work on my classic and let my dad work on other people cars.

--
The journey is better then the end.
Re:So, what they are saying is by RCO · 2004-04-19 05:04 · Score: 1

Hmmm, sounds like my evenings and weekends trying to keep my cars running. Sounds like I already am an auto mechanic.

--
'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
Re:So, what they are saying is by ugauaauag · 2004-04-19 05:23 · Score: 1

The sign at my local VW stealership states that their labor rate is $86/hour.

OUCH!!
Re:So, what they are saying is by Lumpy · 2004-04-19 05:37 · Score: 1

Yes a certified mechanic, espicalyl a GOOD one with IT capabilities can make more than the BEST computer programmer on this planet.

oh and the job satisfaction is better.

when you finish with a job it is DONE.. unlike the bastard users that keep calling back for tiny modifications... software is never EVER done... it haunts you forever.... a properly done car repair, mod, etc.. is finished when you call it done.

I work in IT, my brother is a Chemist, my other brother is a HVAC specalist. my nephew is a car mechanic and makes more than all three of us.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:So, what they are saying is by trukfixer · 2004-04-19 07:49 · Score: 1

and the mechanics make maybe $20 an hour.. I get $18 out of every $70 they charge here...
Re:So, what they are saying is by Grishnakh · 2004-04-20 06:47 · Score: 1

Aren't there other shops where you could have worked to avoid this? Sure, the dealership shops probably just do boring maintenance work, but there's probably small independent shops that do more interesting work for people who'd rather keep their cars than lease a new one. Also, body shops probably do a lot of custom work.
Re:So, what they are saying is by Grishnakh · 2004-04-20 06:52 · Score: 1

You must still be in high school.

In the real world, you need to make money to live, feed your family, etc. Many of us go to college because society has (maybe falsely) taught us that instead of just getting some boring wage-earner job that we hate, we can get an education in a particular field (after many student loans of course) that we have an interest in, and then that'll make us valuable so we can get a higher-paying job in that field when we graduate. That way, we'll be both making money (perhaps more than wage-earners, but not necessarily), and doing something we have at least some interest in.

Now, many people are finding out that this was a dead-end, because they racked up thousands in student loans but now are out of work because the companies that employed them found they could get someone in India to do their job for much less.

There's a lot of unemployed people who aren't looking to be millionaires; they just want a decent job like they had when they graduated school, but now they don't have one, so they have neither happiness or money, despite your assertion that they would if they did what they liked.

Fixing a car is cheap and easy! by thebra · 2004-04-19 04:04 · Score: 3, Funny

This author is crazy, its easy to fix a car, just need a roll of duct tape.

and you're just realizing this now? by drizst+'n+drat · 2004-04-19 04:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

I remember a time when it was easy to get under the hood of your car, do tune-ups, and perform other ordinarily easy maintenance functions ... without having to take the car to a maintenance shop or forbid, a dealer! I've seen these changes occur slowly to the point where it requires special tools (and skills) just to do simple things. I don't even try anymore ... I've seen it in our shop where the technicians are sometimes baffled by problems because they can't get specs from the manufacturer. I've actually had to wait months to get replacement parts for a Ford Explorer because the car is considered too new for generic parts! Go figure. So is this any surprise?

Re:and you're just realizing this now? by Deamos · 2004-04-19 04:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is of no surprise.

In fact, since you mentioned tune ups I will relate a short tale.

I owned a '97 Pontiac Grand Prix. At about 85k miles it was finally time for a tuneup, ok no problem. Took it to have it done, expected it to be expensive since I was having the work done by a mechanic after realizing I could not reach the rear bank of plugs.

So that evening I go pick up my Grand Prix and find a $500 bill for the work, almost $300 of it was labor. I inquired as to why it was so high, apparently in order to get the three rear plugs out, it is required to unmount the engine mostly and tilt the thing forward. This wasn't surprising since the clearance between the back of the engine and the firewall was only a couple of inches at best, probably not even that.

Little chance of my doing that in my home garage, that's for damn sure.

I miss my '78 Chevy Malibu. Had a 305 engine in it and very easy to work on. Learned to work on cars with that one, too bad now a days you have to have a lot of time or equipment to work on cars.

I won't even get into the nightmare that working on my '03 Jaguar X-Type would present if I were nutty enough to attempt it.

It took them two and a half weeks to get a replacement part in for that because the car is still new enough that parts like what failed in mine are still scarce. Thankfully the issue in that case did not leave the car undriveable.

--
"We're so tough we're made of nerf!" --D&D Character Tagline
Re:and you're just realizing this now? by ksheff · 2004-04-19 04:25 · Score: 1

That's why they buy the specs, service bulletins, repair information, etc from this company.

--
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Re:and you're just realizing this now? by dr_dank · 2004-04-19 04:33 · Score: 1

I've actually had to wait months to get replacement parts for a Ford Explorer because the car is considered too new for generic parts!

Worse than that, the OEM's can't keep up with the demand for their parts either! Body parts for the Chevy Aveo (read:Daewoo) are backordered for nearly two months.

--
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Re:and you're just realizing this now? by stangbat · 2004-04-19 04:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

A lot of car maintenance is still easy to do, perhaps even easier than before. Belts still need changed and a single serpentine belt is a godsend. Oil changes and filter changes are still the same. Changing disc brake pads is still pretty easy. Changing coolant, no big difference. And fuel injection means no more messing with carburetors and crazy vacuum hoses (thank God). If you are willing to get your hands dirty you can save a bunch of money. But as the article points out, a lot of stuff can't be "fixed" anymore.

A lot of people look under the hood and instantly get intimidated. My view is that despite how it looks, the basic parts are still there as they have been for decades. You just have to have the desire and interest to figure it out. With that said, I do see why people often don't want to mess with it. It takes work, you get dirty, and you can get hurt.

Tons of people open a computer case, see a complicated jumble of wires and chips, and say "I can never understand this". The average Slashdot reader thinks this stuff is easy. Same thing for cars. The bottom line is determining where you want to spend your time and efforts.

Personally, I do as much maintenance myself as I can. I even do some major repairs, but I make sure to do research before hand and decide if I'll be opening a can of worms doing it myself. So far I have been lucky and not really bit off more than I can chew. But then again I may have a better assesment of my abilities than a lot of do it yourselfers. I save a lot of money, and it is an excuse for me to buy new tools (i.e. toys).
Re:and you're just realizing this now? by uslinux.net · 2004-04-19 04:51 · Score: 1

Remember a time when it was [necessary] to get under the hood of your car, do tune-ups, and perform other ordinarily easy maintenance functions?

I have a '00 4Runner and I used to own a '66 Mustang. In the truck, it's been 60,000 miles and when I pulled the plugs they were as good as new. 150k coolant in the radiator from the factory. Tune-ups? They consist of replacing the plugs every 100k miles or so - the computer adjusts the timing, fuel mixture, etc. Brakes? Most people get 90-100k out of them. You catch my drift.

My point is that with most modern cars, there is very little maintenance that needs to be done. Compare that to pre-fuel-injected vehicles which needed tune-ups every 12,000 miles, timing adjustments every 6 months, extremely frequent oil changes to minimize the oil dilution, etc. If you have to take your vehicle to the mechanic every once-in-a-while instead of tinkering with it yourself every month, it's really not a big deal IMO. Sure it would be *nice* to be able to work on them, but personally I don't feel its necessary.
Re:and you're just realizing this now? by dasmegabyte · 2004-04-19 05:05 · Score: 1

I don't even try anymore

Maybe that's why you're so baffled -- you've never even tried.

I bought a Passat in 2000. Volkswagens are about average when it comes to reliability, and after 80,000 miles I've had some troubles since then, ranging from tie rods to loss of a cylinder to some body repairs and general maintenance.

In that time, I've spent about $250 on labor, and in retrospect I should have done that job myself (tie rod end needed replacement, I did my passenger's side and it took a half hour, but I needed that inspection sticker!). The repair manual I have calls for specialized parts all the time, but there's only been two cases where I've REALLY needed them. One was for the rear brakes (you need to push in while twisting...i could have used a C-clamp but the part only cost me $19) and the other was a special wrench for the transmission fluid (necessary so some vo-tec drop out at an oil center wouldn't drain the tranny fluid...if you're smart enough to know about the wrench, you were smart enough to know where the oil pan was). A lot of times, they tell you to use a custom tool because the custom tool will make the job go faster, essential for a dealership trying to complete the job in less than blue book.

I estimate that if I hadn't penny pinched on parts, and done my own labor, I'd have sunk about $5000 into this car. Instead, I've pushed out less than $1500 including tires and oil. That's less than 2 cents per mile. Really, it's the only thing that's kept it affordable.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:and you're just realizing this now? by drizst+'n+drat · 2004-04-19 05:07 · Score: 1

I had similar experience with an old Plymouth Horizon a real POS (economically speaking). I could only reach half of the plugs. The other half required removing several components from the top of the block to reach them. So I sympothize with you on this one!
Re:and you're just realizing this now? by NoData · 2004-04-19 05:11 · Score: 1

Unfortunately certain manufacturers (Honda and BMW) have demanded alldata cease releasing their service bulletins to consumers. See the message at the bottom here, or just try signing up will alldata for a Honda, Acura, or BMW car. That's just pure control greed.

You can still see the titles, but not the text. And the titles are usually ambiguous.
Re:and you're just realizing this now? by BRTB · 2004-04-19 05:31 · Score: 1

Woah... you still have to the engine-tilt deal on a Grand Prix? Thought maybe they would have changed that by now... I remember that on my old '88 before it crashed... "Step 1. Remove torque stabilizer bars. 2. Remove air intake. 3. Insert prybar and rotate engine forward."

This is why I now have a Jeep Cherokee. Simple enough inline-6 engine, AW4 auto transmission that you *can't kill*, everything is accessible, as long as you have metric sockets. Only two computers, and they don't talk to each other. It just works.
Re:and you're just realizing this now? by Deamos · 2004-04-19 06:11 · Score: 1

I had similar experience with an old Plymouth Horizon a real POS (economically speaking)

My plymouth reliant was no bargain. But at least it was very cheap to fix.

At one point the front axle had to be replaced, don't ask cause I don't remember the details as to why, but it was about $90 for the part and about $200 for the labor!

Stupid labor. At least the inline-4 on that car made it very easy to replace the plugs for a tuneup. Too bad it had to be done every 15-18k miles. Man those cars sucked ass.

--
"We're so tough we're made of nerf!" --D&D Character Tagline
Re:and you're just realizing this now? by Deamos · 2004-04-19 06:37 · Score: 1

Heh, well its good to know that the mechanics weren't telling stories that day. :)

Yeah they still had to tilt the engine forward. I still can not believe it that was needed to replace the spark plugs; though it seemed that in order to do anything to that car you had to remove the sabilizer bars then remove the air intake and then go from there.

What a pain in the ass that car was to work on. Still I loved driving it, so I suppose that makes it a little okay. :)

--
"We're so tough we're made of nerf!" --D&D Character Tagline
Re:and you're just realizing this now? by lythotype · 2004-04-19 06:44 · Score: 1

First... check http://www.allpar.com/omni/omni.html

An Omni/Horizon with a 6 cylinder? I'm not sure I believe you. I could have sworn that most of those little cars had a 2.2L/2.5L I4 engine made by Chrysler. All four plugs (include plug wiring) are within very easy reach on the front the engine, as is the distributor. Chrysler did have a 3.0L V6 made by Mitsubishi(?sp) mated with a 4-speed transmission. I've never seen an Omni/Horizon with one of those v6 though. Was it at GLH, GLHS or a Shelby modified car? What year?

Quoted from allpar.com - http://www.allpar.com/mopar/3.html
"Vehicles equipped with the 3.0 liter engine:
Caravan/Voyager and early Town & Country (quickly replaced by 3.3)
Spirit/Acclaim/LeBaron sedan
LeBaron coupe/convertible
Daytona
Sundance (Duster)/Shadow
New Yorker AC body - until 1990 (replaced by 3.3)
Dynasty (replaced by 3.3)
Hyundia Sonata
Various Mitsubishis"

What "components" required removal to change the rear three plugs?

My 92 Chevy Lumina (3.1L V6) also has problems with the amount of space to change the rear three plugs. The official procedure is to unbolt the two "dog-bone" engine mounts and rock the engine forward till the engine line up with special points on the "dog-bone" mounts. This give more than enough room to change the rear three plugs. No component removal required!
Re:and you're just realizing this now? by confused+one · 2004-04-19 10:55 · Score: 1

It's really not any harder to work on a newer car, with one caveat: You MUST have the correct scan tool. You will have to spend several hundred dollars on it; but, it's a one time expense... Easy to justify when a dealer charges anywhere from $75-$150 just to connect to their diagnostic computer.

3k for an HID light?? by Kanabiis+Atiiva · 2004-04-19 04:05 · Score: 1

Where are you shipping that Mars??

Seriously, an HID conversion kit will run you 700 bucks a pair, if your replacing your high and low beam 1400 bucks... to replace an HID light costs just a little over twice what a traditional halogen bulb will cost.

Anyone that pays 3k for an HID bulb got taken to the cleaners and doesnt even know how to do a simple froogle search.

Re:3k for an HID light?? by confused+one · 2004-04-19 04:16 · Score: 1

The cost is in the custom lens assembly. They're not talking about the standard round or rectangle lenses.
Re:3k for an HID light?? by Thud457 · 2004-04-19 04:21 · Score: 1

Well, some cars cost more than others. But then again, you'd expect Porsche parts to be expensive. The "easily stealable" part is what I take issue with. Imagine getting hit by these guys three, four times. Ouch!

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:3k for an HID light?? by KingOfBLASH · 2004-04-19 04:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

The problem with a lot of the expensive components is they have to be installed by the dealer, or somebody with the diagnostic tools to properly get something working. When the headline blew on my passat, I tried replacing the bulb. It didn't work, and the fuses were all good. So then I took it in to the dealer, who charged me for replacing the headlight. Thing is, he did something with his computer to get the passat to "accept" the new headlight

And it gets worse. I found I could buy tires for wholesale + shipping at some site online. So I bought them, but having them mounted on my rims and on the car cost an arm and a leg. Why? Because the "free mounting and balancing" at Firestone dealerships is only for tires you buy there, and it came to an arm and a leg -- more than I saved on the tires.
Re:3k for an HID light?? by TheCaptain · 2004-04-19 04:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well...I confess that I didn't read the article yet - but I think they are talking about an expensive manufacturer supplied part on a high end car. I read a story about Porsches (if I recall correctly) having their headlights stolen very frequently, because they were easy for a thief to pull out quickly, and the new ones from the dealer would run an owner about 3K+ each...makes a nice little used parts business for the thief.

If anything here is inaccurate, I am just going by memory - but you get the gist....it's the high end import cars with expensive OEM parts.
Re:3k for an HID light?? by Vindicator9000 · 2004-04-19 04:42 · Score: 1

Or, you can get the same effect by going to any auto parts store and buy the Sylvania Silverstar Xenon bulbs for $15 each. They're really bright, and will fit most cars without any modifications. I think GE makes an even cheaper knockoff ($7-%10)
I guess this is just more proof that there are people with considerably more cents than sense.
Re:3k for an HID light?? by cephyn · 2004-04-19 04:49 · Score: 1

Hah silverstars...yeah they're cheap, but you get what you pay for. They're incredibly fragile -- the filament tends to break on bumpy roads, and nowhere NEAR the light output of true xenons. But yeah, they are cheap! Go for it!

--
Moo.
Re:3k for an HID light?? by Voytek · 2004-04-19 04:58 · Score: 1

Shouldn't have cost you more than $20-40 to get tires mounted and balanced. If it was more than that you got royally screwed; otherwise you have cheap limbs...
Re:3k for an HID light?? by KingOfBLASH · 2004-04-19 05:05 · Score: 1

Mounted to the rims it's $20+ per tire. So I saved $25 per tire and paid $20 per tire to get them mounted on the rims, and get rid of my old tires.
Re:3k for an HID light?? by Voytek · 2004-04-19 05:55 · Score: 1

you got so raped it's not even funny... well, maybe a little funny.
Re:3k for an HID light?? by Suidae · 2004-04-19 07:36 · Score: 1

Wow, you should have gone to a different shop. Guys around here will plug-patch tires (thats remove from vehicle, dismount, clean the inside, install the plug-patch, mount, test, balance and reinstall) for me for about 12 bucks. Takes about half an hour usually, including curing time before mounting the tires.

No doubt they'd be happy to do the easy part of mount-and-balance of 4 tires for me for under $30. But then, racing is pretty popular around here, and nearly every shop (and some peoples home garages) have those big tire mounting machines.
Re:3k for an HID light?? by All+Names+Have+Been · 2004-04-19 10:44 · Score: 1

Because the "free mounting and balancing" at Firestone dealerships is only for tires you buy there

That is completely unreasonable! I had a similar problem! I bought some pants from Sears and took them to Nordstroms because thy offerred free alterations! But get this! - they wouldn't do it because I didn't buy them there! False advertising! They suck!
Re:3k for an HID light?? by KingOfBLASH · 2004-04-19 10:55 · Score: 1

Well, I understand that the free mounting and balancing is a gimmick. My point is that, because of that gimmick, even though you can get tires for cheaper over the net, you can't get the mounting and balancing done for free.
Re:3k for an HID light?? by Buran · 2004-04-19 12:24 · Score: 1

Errrr. uh. Last I knew you didn't have to do anything with the scan tool. Do you have a Passat W8?

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:3k for an HID light?? by KingOfBLASH · 2004-04-20 05:27 · Score: 1

No, B5. But he did something, because I changed the light bulb myself. So, the question becomes, what did he do? A light bulb shouldn't require a delear to change...
Re:3k for an HID light?? by Buran · 2004-04-20 06:00 · Score: 1

Now that doesn't make any sense. My guess is that perhaps some connector was loose somewhere, or perhaps the bulb was bad (which can happen occasionally) and the dealer jiggled it and gave you an excuse to justify what they probably overcharged you for. I imagine the regular headlights on the non-W8 Passat are very similar to the halogens on the MkIV Golf, which I've changed out several times on my own. And the DRLs are hardwired in, not part of the electronics system (if you tape over the right pin in the headlight switch, they are disableable and the computer can't even tell) so it's not that.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:3k for an HID light?? by KingOfBLASH · 2004-04-20 08:50 · Score: 1

I didn't think it made any sense either -- why would a computer be connected to the lights? However, the guy did something. What that was, I may never know.

Hey I don't need technology for that! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 04:05 · Score: 1, Funny

Whenever my wife drives my car there's a 10% chance she breaks something. Mirrors are ductaped on, car has long scratches in the bodywork on both sides, bumpers are cracked. Cost of repair is already more than resale cost of car.

guess what by mrsev · 2004-04-19 04:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

rant

They want your money.
They do not want you to fix it yourself.
They want to sell you a whole new part every time!
They do not want you to buy a part from someone else.
They want you to get then to fix it in one of their repairshops. /rant

Re:guess what by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 04:12 · Score: 1, Funny

Kind of getting to sound like MS's business model huh?
Re:guess what by langeland · 2004-04-19 04:32 · Score: 1

Exactly! And add to that:

They want you to go to their repairshops for the "required" maintinance checks every 30.000 km or so.

If you don't: forget about reselling your car for a reasonable price.

If you do: pay up!

Re:Oxymoron? by TykeClone · 2004-04-19 04:05 · Score: 4, Funny

The other thing about that mount is that if the truck catches fire and it is hot enough to ignite the magnesium - ouch!

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.

Re:Oxymoron? by confused+one · 2004-04-19 04:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

strong != flexible.

me neither, but... by ed.han · 2004-04-19 04:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

it's sorta like buying a new PC if you're a typical (windows) user: you get all manner of doodads you don't really need, b/c that's all anybody is making anymore.

ed

this is caca de toro... by dummkopf · 2004-04-19 04:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

a) If the car repair industry requires IT gues, well heck, better for us hacker and hobbyists out there!

b) While the cars become more complex, the tools to fix them become better. Nowadays a mechanic plugs a laptop into your car and the car tells him/her "the fuel pump is 10% off, should I readjust?". 15 years ago mechanics would do something closely resembling forensics to figure out which wire was fried. This is done today in seconds.

Clearly some complex parts are hard to repair, but instead of dumping them, export them to third world countries where they will be miracolously repaired....

Re:this is caca de toro... by Zweistein_42 · 2004-04-19 04:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

b) is only half the truth... that laptop-wielding mechanic also won't have a clue when some actual trouble-shooting needs to be done. I've had technicians who could hear the horrible, screeching sounds coming from the engine as well as I could, but since no codes were forthcoming from the diagnostic machine, the problem "did not exist". So... some problems are easy to diagnose -- if there's a working sensor designed to detect that specific problem. Other problems are devilishly difficult as cars get so complex that it is near impossible to figure out what is causing an intermittent glitch.

--
- To err is human; but to really screw up, you need a computer
Re:this is caca de toro... by millahtime · 2004-04-19 04:18 · Score: 1

"Nowadays a mechanic plugs a laptop into your car and the car tells him/her "the fuel pump is 10% off, should I readjust?". 15 years ago mechanics would do something closely resembling forensics to figure out which wire was fried. This is done today in seconds."

And they still charge you the same rate as when it took them hours to find the problem and fix it.

--
Evolution or ID?
Re:this is caca de toro... by gujju · 2004-04-19 06:08 · Score: 1

I totally agree with this guys last statement. I've had to replace an alternator on my Buick and my Honda (the regulator was busted)....In India, the don't replace the part uncless it's physically broken and cannot be be fixed..When I had a problem with an alternator in my car in India, the guy took the alternator apart and replaced only the part that was busted...(I'm kinda jinxed with alternators I guess...)

Gujju
Re:this is caca de toro... by confused+one · 2004-04-19 10:59 · Score: 1

I've had technicians who could hear the horrible, screeching sounds coming from the engine as well as I could, but since no codes were forthcoming from the diagnostic machine, the problem "did not exist".
And you had a technician who is an idiot...
Re:this is caca de toro... by Grishnakh · 2004-04-20 07:09 · Score: 1

Yes, you can still buy these parts here too. You didn't have to buy a whole new alternator. However, since you were too lazy to do it yourself, it was cheaper for the mechanic to replace the entire alternator than to waste time replacing only the regulator.

If you're going to pay top-dollar for American labor, don't complain when they don't spend extra time just to save a few bucks on parts when it'll cost you more because of the labor cost.

The problem is... by AcquaCow · 2004-04-19 04:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

Newer cars are being treated like appliances rather than machines. Machines you have to maintain, appliances you replace.

The problem with this is that cars _are_ indeed machines. People are just lazy.

People no longer care if "that thing's got a hemi" They just want 50mpg and oil that never has to be replaced.

It's sad.

--

up 12 days, 22:30, 2 users, load averages: 993.20, 994.21, 994.56
*makes note to limit user processes...

Re:The problem is... by Xzzy · 2004-04-19 04:21 · Score: 1

It is sad.

Last summer some lady was stuck at the grocery store, her '99 chevy wouldn't turn over. She had managed to pop the hood open and was standing over the engine cursing "stupid car" over and over.

Friend and I gave her a jump and it started fine, something in the charging system was probably dead. As she ambled back into the car she said something about how the car was junk, it only had 80k miles and was already going bad.

We made comments similar to yours as she drove off, probably to her next errand where she'd get stuck again and curse at the car some more.
Re:The problem is... by ksheff · 2004-04-19 04:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Based on the vehicles I see most of the time, I would say they care more about "that thing's got a hemi/v10/whatever" than if it gets 50mpg. If they got 1/2 of that, it must be when they are going downhill and have a tail wind.

--
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Re:The problem is... by sir_cello · 2004-04-19 04:26 · Score: 1

>> The problem with this is that cars _are_ indeed machines. People are just lazy.

Not really: cars are massively commodified products, and increasingly complex. They are infact replaceable products - they may have been "machines" in the early 1900s, but not since WW2.

But i'm not entirely convinced by this article: advanced technology in cars is a good thing, and correspondingly requires increased skill to maintain. That's just society going forward really: accept it or remain a luddite. Though, it is fair to question how things are going forward, e.g. whether car manufacturers are abusing their positions.

The main issue here seems to be not with the technology _per se_, but (a) manufacturers charging premium prices for spare parts, or using technological sophistication to own the after-market, (b) the poor design of these cars that prevents the easy and low cost replacement of components.

Part of the problem is that unlike your 80gig IDE, the majority of cars are built with custom components (save for platform sharing, such as VW) that cost premium prices (look at any corresponding computing technology that isn't sufficiently commoditised and it will also have a premium price). It's also such a fashion market (that I guess most people reading this participate in ...) so the manufacturers are compelled to turn over new models frequently (then again, the manufacturers like the churn too ...).

Perhaps the manufacturers need to do more standardise on components in general, but I conceed that's not easy. Producing a new car design is a very expensive process with lots of manufacturing /etc.

It's not really sad that people just want a product. Remember that most people aren't hackers and don't have the time to tinker or self fix. There will always be a market for the hackers and tinkerers (like in computing, not everybody wants the reproduction dell).

Perhaps all the people being displaced by IT outsourcing can train as "car technical support experts" and get a job in their local community :-).
Re:The problem is... by AcquaCow · 2004-04-19 04:29 · Score: 2, Informative
Your answer:

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20040407.html

Quote:
In 1951, Chrysler introduced a new line of V8 engines called the
Hemi. The name came from the cylinder heads, which had a
hemispherical design. The design itself wasn't new, but it had never been used
in a passenger car before.
As TheHemi.Com explains, the
Hemi engine differs from standard V8 engines in three main ways:
- The hemispherical combustion chambers create better thermal and volumetric
  efficiency. Thus, the engine can create more power without increasing
  compression, which would entail a higher octane fuel.
- Valves are placed directly across from each other, as opposed to
  side-by-side, to allow better intake and exhaust gas flow.
- The spark plugs are better positioned to provide maximum ignition
  combustion in the chambers.
A photographic comparison of the
Hemi and other engine types might help explain the differences. If you really
know your stuff, you can race through this incredibly
detailed explanation. And if you want to get revved up about Hemis, check
out Hot Rod Magazine
for an article about a Hemi exhibit at the Walter P. Chrysler Museum. It might
just spark your interest.
--

up 12 days, 22:30, 2 users, load averages: 993.20, 994.21, 994.56
*makes note to limit user processes...
Re:The problem is... by ianjk · 2004-04-19 04:29 · Score: 1

"People no longer care if "that thing's got a hemi" They just want 50mpg and oil that never has to be replaced."

hmm... I see the exact opposite where I live. All you see around here are full-size SUVs and trucks.
Re:The problem is... by swillden · 2004-04-19 04:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Newer cars are being treated like appliances rather than machines... It's sad.
Depends on your point of view, I suppose.
Personally, I think it's rather impressive. Back when everyone could work on their own car, everyone *had* to work on their own car, because cars needed lots of attention on a regular basis just to keep running. Modern automobiles have gotten so reliable that people fully expect them to run for 100,000+ miles without anything more than gas, oil changes and new tires and brakes. The day when driving a car daily meant you had to be able to troubleshoot problems is gone.
It's sad for people who enjoy working on cars in their spare time, but for everyone else, who just wants to get from point A to point B, reliably, comfortably, safely and in whatever style they prefer, it's great.
I like not having to fiddle with my cars; it frees up time I can spend fiddling with computers, dive gear, my nifty new GPS receiver, etc.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:The problem is... by DarkSarin · 2004-04-19 04:34 · Score: 1

Not to mention in nuetral...

The gap between efficiency and power cars/SUV's is growing all the time. When I first started driving, I had a VW rabbit (5speed) with a deisel engine. It got close to 40 mpg. Now I have a minivan (~23 to ~26 mpg) and a grand am (92) (~20mpg). The car could do better, but I have a couple of leaks in the fuel system... (only leaks when its running, so fumes (the dangerous part of gas) can't build up).

Here in Clemson, there are a lot of SUV's, especially on campus. Sad thing is that 90% of the owners are students, and we can all guess where they got the money for one of those.

If mommies and daddies weren't so anxious to spend a gazillion dollars on jr., there wouldn't be so many cars on the road. Personally I think any parent that buys their child a car made within the past 5 years is crazy. Kid don't need it! IF they REALLY need any car at all, I think it should be an older vehicle, and they should be required to do all maintenance.

The trouble is that these days, you can't. I _barely_ understand the more complicated systems on my car. I can change the brakes, alternator, etc, but if the tranny ever goes, I'm up a creek. A lot of people can't do that much.

As an example of how bad its getting, I recently overheard some individuals saying how they had had trouble the first time they were on their own because they didn't know how to pump the gas! Sheesh! It's very sad.

Also, I would gladly trade my grand am in for a hybrid--efficiency is important. Unfortunately it also seems to come at the price of easy maintenance. Maybe the two will converge at some point.

--
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Re:The problem is... by elandal · 2004-04-19 04:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

For me, a car is a way to get from place A to place B comfortably, economically, and in reasonable time.

In last year I've opened the hood a few times: to add water (and some liquid stuff they sell at gas stops) to windshield cleaning thingie. If there's anything except adding fuel or the cleaning solution, the car goes to a repair shop. Well, changing tires is done in another shop as I know the people working there and know they're going to sell me good tires for reasonable price.

I don't want to open the hood. I don't want to do any repairs. I want to move between locations comfortably, economically, when I want to (as opposed to when the busses/trains go, although I do choose the train quite often).

For these reasons, I'm not going to buy a 20 year old "real car" but rather a new one that will work without trouble for a few years again.
Re:The problem is... by nexthec · 2004-04-19 04:47 · Score: 1

Let me digress for a moment, simply to ask, what the fuck is a 'hemi'?

In some ways, its a joke, but I dont think dodge ment it to be so.

Let me digress for a moment, simply to ask, what the fuck is a 'hemi'?

I have seen that word bandied about in commercials. It is clear to me from its use that it is a word the marketing group of that particular manufacturer has seized like a dog upon a rat and is shaking far past its useful life. Having grown up assisting (e.g., handing tools around) on repair of various auto and diesel marine engines, and never having heard the word, I suspect it may be a recently made-up/marketing word.

Hemi is short for Hemispherical Head, meaning the combustion chamber is not round. It was developed for cars during the Horsepower wars of the 40's and 50's, but had been around for a while used in airplains before cars. It was a state of the art engine design at one point in time. Now its pretty common. That's where the joke that Dodge didnt mean to set up when they did that ad. several Dodge or Chrysler (labaron?) low end consumer cars had a hemi in it during the 70's and 80's I belive. It would be like Chevy putting out an add about their new truck being fuel injected. Yeah its cool, but it aint unique.

For some personal feelings on a Hemi:
From what I can tell, it appears that what a hemi does well, is high RPM, high hourse power. Cool for racing, and cars but is not what you want when towing. You want low RPM, high Torque. so I cant imagine taking a boat up a hill with that thing. 2nd' gear, 5 grand, and doing 35 mph ;->
Re:The problem is... by Gossy · 2004-04-19 04:49 · Score: 1

If mommies and daddies weren't so anxious to spend a gazillion dollars on jr., there wouldn't be so many cars on the road. Personally I think any parent that buys their child a car made within the past 5 years is crazy. Kid don't need it! IF they REALLY need any car at all, I think it should be an older vehicle, and they should be required to do all maintenance.

Why do the parents NEED a newer car than the kids?

Newer cars are much safer. Young drivers are more likely to have an accident. It's not completely crazy to give the younger drivers safer cars!

(I accept however that I bet most of them aren't chosen for their NCAP saftey ratings..)
Re:The problem is... by duffbeer703 · 2004-04-19 04:57 · Score: 1

Are you on crack?

I'm 6'5". I can suffer in a 50 mpg Toyota Echo or whatever and get out of the thing with a broken back. (And the Echo is roomy for an econobox)

Or I could sit in comfort in my Cadillac, which gets 28mpg. Or in a pickup that gets 20mpg.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Re:The problem is... by Paulrothrock · 2004-04-19 05:22 · Score: 1

Why, yes, I do want 50mpg and no oil to replace.

But I also want to fix it myself so I get to save money.

So I'll get me a TDI and a veggie kit and run it till the doors fall off.

--
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Re:The problem is... by Paulrothrock · 2004-04-19 05:25 · Score: 1

My dad bought me a car, and not because he really liked me a lot. He spent $2000 on a real junker that I could fix myself because I was involved in school activities and he didn't want to have to drive me every time we had a band competition/jazz band gig/Youth in Government meeting. He didn't really want to buy me one, but there was no way that I could have done all those things without having a car: nothing is within walking distance, and riding a bike is suicidal.

--
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Re:The problem is... by Paulrothrock · 2004-04-19 05:29 · Score: 1

I find it amazing that anyone who owns something as complex as a car or a computer can not care how it works.

Do you even change your own oil?

--
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Re:The problem is... by ksheff · 2004-04-19 05:45 · Score: 1

In Sam's Club a few months ago, I saw a book that contained nothing but magazine car ads from the 70s. While flipping through it, I noticed an ad for a Datsun that claimed it got 40+mpg. I thought that it's sad that unless it's a hybrid, I don't think Nissan makes anything that gets better than that. Everything I see is much bigger than they used to be and only has fuel economy in the mid 30s.

--
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Re:The problem is... by elandal · 2004-04-19 05:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nope. It's part of the yearly checkup at the repair shop. My yearly kilometers are low enough that a year passes sooner than the kilometer count between required checkups.

I do KNOW how to check / add / change oil. But why would I do that when it's one of the items on the "yearly checkup" list? I do actually know a lot more about cars than I care for. I could probably do the routine maintenance on an old car if I really had to, and had some reference material to refresh my memory with. I just don't want to.

Similarly, some years back I did a lot of computer maintenance. But these days I design software, and the computers are a tool (as opposed to target of the work), so I'd rather have them "just work". I've got better things to use my time on than to repair a PC when I can have the PC fixed at a fair price by people whose jobs' target is the PC.

As I pay for someone else to fix my PCs (where I could do that myself too, thank you), I can spend the time eg. with family, friends, or even earning money with which to pay for the repairs.

Now, do you do your hair / beard / moustache yourself? Cook from real raw materials (as opposed to fastfood, restaurants, or cook using almost ready ingredients)? Sew your own suits? And so on.
Some people eat out almost always, some cook themselves. Some buy their clothes, some sew themselves. Some fix their own cars or computers, some have others fix them.
It's just a choice about what you do yourself and what not. Nobody can do everything these days. Really. And I like cooking more than fixing a car. I like designing software more than diagnosing broken PCs.
Re:The problem is... by rtaylor · 2004-04-19 06:05 · Score: 1

I don't want to open the hood. I don't want to do any repairs. I want to move between locations comfortably, economically, when I want to (as opposed to when the busses/trains go, although I do choose the train quite often).

Imagine cars were like high end server equipment. When they have a problem the repair guy mysteriously appears on your doorstep saying that your car needs ABC completed.

--
Rod Taylor
Re:The problem is... by DarkSarin · 2004-04-19 06:24 · Score: 1

I never claimed parents needed a newer car than the kids. I said only that kids don't need a brand new car.

I am of the mindset that you buy a car and then drive it until the wheels fall off. I *might* be convinced to give my old car to my kid if there was a good reason.

As far as safety differences go, you do make an interesting point. I don't necessarily agree though. One trouble with buying young Jimbo a new car is that he is likely to start showing it off. If its a sports car, he's likely to speed. If its a SUV, he'll go offroad. The trouble with a safer car is that most people will drive more dangerously to compensate for the added safety features. This isn't a technical problem, but a psychological one, and well established at that (and may be the reason that hands-free cell phones are no safer than regular ones as far as drivers are concerned).

I would say that IF you feel compelled to buy Jimbo a new car, get him a four-door Volvo (great safety), or a non-sporty hybrid (not a civic!). SUV's are right out, as are mustangs, celicas, civics, and all the other sporty types. The idea is to get a utilitarian car (after all, this is the only thing that makes sense if your argument is for safety reasons).

As a matter of record (AAMOR?), the only reason I got a car from my parents was because my dad spent summer of 94 in the hospital (96 days to be exact), and I needed to be able to get around. If we hadn't lived 10 miles from the closest town, it might have been different, but as it was, I needed to eat (mom only came home about 4 times that summer--the hospital was 80+ miles away).

--
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Re:The problem is... by Paulrothrock · 2004-04-19 07:22 · Score: 1

Now, do you do your hair / beard / moustache yourself? Cook from real raw materials (as opposed to fastfood, restaurants, or cook using almost ready ingredients)? Sew your own suits? And so on.

Hair? No. My mom's a hairdresser, and I get free haircuts from her. Beard? I shave every day. Cook from raw materials? I love doing that. So much more flavorful.

I guess I'm just shocked at the fact that you aren't curious. Maybe it's me, but I like to noodle with things and see how they work, and you can't do that in newer cars without frying the whole thing.

--
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Re:The problem is... by TangLiSha · 2004-04-19 07:33 · Score: 1

My car does get 50mpg and the oil only has to be changed every 7,500 miles. (Toyota Prius)

Do I know how my car works? Sort of. Would I dare to touch anything under the hood short of washer fluid and the occasional check for oil level? No, and I'm not the only one. Just you try to find a non-dealer garage or audio shop that will put a new stereo in a hybrid.

Now for the important question: Does all this bother me? No. The better gas mileage and low emissions are worth it to me. I've owned this car for two years and I still get excited every time the engine shuts off and all that can be heard is the soft hum of the motor.

So, call me lazy if you want to, but I'm happy in my partial ignorance.

--
Everyone has an agenda. Except me. --Michael Crichton
Re:The problem is... by Rob+Parkhill · 2004-04-19 07:45 · Score: 1

I hate all the rich bastards who have cars given to them by their parents. When I turned 16, I BOUGHT a car from my mom... and it was a lemon! I spent endless hours and 2X the cost of the car fixing it up enough to sell the POS.

New car indeed. Take the bus to your part-time job and save your money to buy the damned car yourself!

--
"Tomorrow's forecast: a few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" - Stewie Griffin
Re:The problem is... by npsimons · 2004-04-19 07:55 · Score: 1

but for everyone else, who just wants to get from point A to point B, reliably, comfortably, safely and in whatever style they prefer, it's great.

Then why don't these people use public transportation? Hell, with public transportation, you don't even have to pay attention to the road!

I just hope this never happens to computers. Or better yet, they should have two kinds of "cars": things which get you from point A to point B and you pay a bunch of money to have worked on because you're not allowed to touch the insides, and automobiles that can be repaired by anyone with some gumption, knowledge and the right tools.

--
Nathan's blog
Re:The problem is... by cdipierr · 2004-04-19 08:37 · Score: 1

Yes, that's fine, and your "automobile" will cost $100,000 while everyone else's "appliance" will cost $20,000. If you're ok with this, that's fine since that's the way supply and demand works (and you're in the minority here so you have to pay).
Re:The problem is... by CptNerd · 2004-04-19 08:37 · Score: 1

Because with public transportation you go where they tell you, when they allow you, and to get from A to B you have to make 20+ stops between A and Q, to get to the Q-B bus, if it hasn't stopped running for the day.

--
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
Re:The problem is... by ksheff · 2004-04-19 08:38 · Score: 1

But the drivers in the UK have very high fuel prices compared to the US (thanks to ~75% of the cost being tax) and that helps create a market for those cars (which aren't sold here - the Sentra is the entry level Nissan and it gets 28/35mpg (city/highway)). Finding a used car with a manual transmission in the US is a pain if you don't want a sports car. If one wants a diesel, it will probably be a European one. The US automakers screwed up their diesel motors for cars and dropped them (the Olds V-6 got great mileage in a Ciera, but was very noisy).

--
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Re:The problem is... by Kiryat+Malachi · 2004-04-19 08:39 · Score: 1

You cook from vegetables you grew and animals you raised, slaughtered, and dressed yourself, wearing clothes you made yourself? The point is that sooner or later you make a choice between investing time or money, and that for *most* people that choice w/r/t cars is shifting further and further towards money.

Really, I only have so much in the way of time, and cars don't make the list of 'things I have time to mess with'. On the other hand, I can do a lot of reading about how modern cars work. And do, which is good, considering I work in automotive electronics.

--

---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Re:The problem is... by Osty · 2004-04-19 08:42 · Score: 1

Modern automobiles have gotten so reliable that people fully expect them to run for 100,000+ miles without anything more than gas, oil changes and new tires and brakes.

I know people that expect to run for 100,000+ miles without anything but gas! Some of them care enough to change their oil periodically, but I don't think they've ever considered new tires and brakes. When you consider that many people lease cars for only 2-3 years these days, they often won't even bother with oil changes. Modern engines and synthetic oils really can last 30,000+ miles without major problems for the driver (the next owner of the car is going to be in hell, though), so these leasees don't bother. Why should they spend their time and money on a car that they're going to turn in at the end of the lease?

I find it frightening that Jiffy Lube has been running advertisements reminding people that they need to change the oil in their cars. I guess people don't realize that basic maintenance is still required to keep their cars running reliably.
Re:The problem is... by ChrisMaple · 2004-04-19 10:25 · Score: 1

Public transportation? Reliably, comfortably, and safely? A city bus in Los Angeles is neither reliable nor comfortable (well, there are a few with padded seats, but not many). And while it's fairly safe on the bus, in a ten year period at busstops one person threatened to attack me and another to kill me.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:The problem is... by Ender_Stonebender · 2004-04-19 10:55 · Score: 1

There weren't any buses that came through the area I lived in when I was a suburban teenager with a POS minimum wage job.

That said: When the car I was driving broke down (between my sister and I, it had been pretty much driven to its grave), I rode my bicycle to work until I'd saved enough money to get it fixed (which was months, at minimum wage).

--Ender

--
Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
Re:The problem is... by misleb · 2004-04-19 14:01 · Score: 1

You're living in Los Angeles! Duh! I live in Chicago and it isn't quite so bad (New York is better). I think it has to do with sprawl. On this Earth, the further West you go, the worse public transportation gets. You, my friend, have hit rock bottom. ;-) You'll need to go to Europe to get real pulic transportation. I've been to England, Spain, and Germany. Every major city has an awesome public transportation system. Not once did I ever need to take a bus. You're never more than a few blocks from a train station. Reliable, comfortable, and safe.

--
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Re:The problem is... by swillden · 2004-04-19 15:40 · Score: 1

I just hope this never happens to computers.
As far as the hardware goes, it mostly happened to computers before you started fiddling with them. All of the parts are now so small and so hard to work with that you cannot do anything but the largest sort of manipulations, like replacing a video card, or a hard drive. In many machines, all of the major components are in a few surface-mounted chipsets on the motherboard, so you can't even replace them individually.
With regard to software, I don't think the analogy with automobiles holds very well. For one thing, with cars it's not a matter of the hood being welded shut, it's that what's under the hood is, while completely accessible to anyone with an assortment of wrenches, nearly incomprehensible. I suppose that software could become so complex that the same could happen, even if it's all open source.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:The problem is... by Remillard · 2004-04-19 16:24 · Score: 1

Personally, I think it's rather impressive. Back when everyone could work on their own car, everyone *had* to work on their own car, because cars needed lots of attention on a regular basis just to keep running. Modern automobiles have gotten so reliable that people fully expect them to run for 100,000+ miles without anything more than gas, oil changes and new tires and brakes. The day when driving a car daily meant you had to be able to troubleshoot problems is gone.

Interestingly enough, this is essentially the situation in Cuba. Due to the decades long embargo of parts, most of the cars in Cuba were built a very long time ago. They work on the cars because they HAVE to work on their cars themselves and get parts where they can find them. There is apparantly quite a industry in fitting heterogenous parts together to cobble together a working vehicle. Very much a "do-it-yourself" situation at least as far as automobiles go.
Re:The problem is... by leandrod · 2004-04-22 00:22 · Score: 1

> The name came from the cylinder heads, which had a hemispherical design. The design itself wasn't new, but it had never been used in a passenger car before.

Simply not true. The German 1,930's Düsenberg J had it.
It is incredible how the US has to try and take credit for everything under the Sun.

--
Leandro GuimarÃ£es Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin

/me hugs by acceleriter · 2004-04-19 04:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

the 1990 Volvo 240 wagon, and sleeps better at night knowing that my insurance company and the police can't download my driving history from a black box, either.

--

CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

Re:/me hugs by AcquaCow · 2004-04-19 04:12 · Score: 1

our 240 wagon is currently at 240kmi...we were hoping to drive it into the ground, so we stopped changing the oil about 50kmi ago...it's still running! In the last 10k the car picked up an oil leak...I don't even think there's been oil in it for about 5kmi.

--

up 12 days, 22:30, 2 users, load averages: 993.20, 994.21, 994.56
*makes note to limit user processes...
Re:/me hugs by acceleriter · 2004-04-19 04:26 · Score: 1

You could sell it on eBay :).

--
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Re:/me hugs by Servo · 2004-04-19 04:33 · Score: 1

Uhm, I'm not a mechanic, but I think its impossible to run a car without any oil. Maybe short on oil, but not if most of it drained out on your driveway.

--
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
Re:/me hugs by eric76 · 2004-04-19 05:31 · Score: 1

My usual suggestion is that if your oil light ever comes on when you're driving, you should do the following steps:

1) Add oil
2) Place ad in paper
3) Sell car
4) Buy new car.

Of course, there are exceptions. I was driving down the road one day in my '64 International pickup when the oil pressure guage suddenly showed no pressure at all.

I stopped on the side of the road, opened the hood, and found that the wire had come off the oil pressure sending unit.

So, if the oil pressure light comes on due to the wire coming off the oil pressure sending unit, you don't have to sell the car.
Re:/me hugs by Eraser_ · 2004-04-19 07:07 · Score: 1

Amen. Nothing stops them either. Timing belt slips? Oh well replace it. New oil? 10k miles, if you remember. Mine ate water pumps every 3 years for some odd reason, but we think the prior owner warped something. Nothing $60 and 2 hours labor couldn't fix though (including cleaning up the coolant you just dumped all over the garage, oops...). The oil stopper in the bottom used a size "1" metric wrench to get off, which amused me to no end. No friggen fractions to remember.

The thing which finally killed that volvo was someone who ran a stop sign and warped the frame.
Re:/me hugs by KozmoStevnNaut · 2004-04-19 07:07 · Score: 1

Dude, it's a Volvo!

It's practially a swedish tank. The 240 is high on my "I really want this car as my first car" list. All my friends tell me that Volvos suck, but what do they know? They've obviously never driven one :)

It's a shame they're still sorta expensive, even when used. Well, at least here in Denmark, they are :(

--
Eat the rich.
Re:/me hugs by ImpTech · 2004-04-19 07:30 · Score: 1

Old school Volvos definitely rock. I had an '81 DL in high school. When it finally wouldn't pass inspection in 1998, it had 319,000 miles on it. Probably would have gone farther if it hadn't been thoroughly abused by hard winters and crappy dirt roads for most of its life. What was really great about it though was the accessibility. Everything was simple and mechanical. You could take apart the entire interior of the car with nothing but a phillips-head, and the engine wasn't much more complex. Sounded like a tank, and looked and felt about as foreign as any car ever could. She was a real unique machine.
Re:/me hugs by clintp · 2004-04-19 08:00 · Score: 1

It's not impossible at all, in fact any car will run without oil. Not for very long though.

The trick is keeping it cool -- tough to do, since oil is esential to the cooling system. It'll run till the pistons or a lifter/tappet gets hot enough to seize the surrounding bore, the head warps and you lose pressure, or you can't stand the screaming of the crankshaft bearings any longer.

And then it may never run again.

--
Get off my lawn.

This all started when we stopped building them... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 04:06 · Score: 2, Funny

...out of wood. And replaced horses with engines. Can't grow one anymore. Gotta buy a whole new one.

Re:Oxymoron? by Ruprecht+the+Monkeyb · 2004-04-19 04:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Strong means it requires a lot of force to affect a change in its shape. Brittle means that instead of bending or subtly deforming when enough force is applied, it will shear or shatter instead. You might be able to un-bend a deformed mount. A shattered mount has to be replaced.

Re:Oxymoron? by 3.5+stripes · 2004-04-19 04:07 · Score: 1

Well, because strength can mean it can withstand a lot of weight, but not sharp shocks. Especially if you consider the shock is many times more than the material is built to support..

--

He tried to kill me with a forklift!

Re:Oxymoron? by lawpoop · 2004-04-19 04:07 · Score: 1

Aluminum. Not very strong, but how often do you see it shatter? It just bends.

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso

This is too true by bigjnsa500 · 2004-04-19 04:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Just pop the hood of any new car nowadays. Almost everything is *enclosed* in plastic. It's getting to the point where dealers will have a monopoly on car repair.

How can you fix this problem? Stop buying new cars when you car is perfectly good. Plus it will save you a few bills each month.

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.

Re:This is too true by Jim_Maryland · 2004-04-19 04:24 · Score: 1

The problem for most people is that they are unwilling to do some repairs themselves. The cost of repairs for an older vehicle are often weighed against the cost of a new one. If the vehicle is older or plagued with problems, the economical choice tends to be a new vehicle.

As a backyard mechanic myself, I kept my old Nissan Sentra out of the junkyard for quite a while. Was cheaper to get a used engine for about $350 or a used transmission for $150. Another option is a rebuild kit which ran about $200 (piston rings, bearings, gaskets, etc...). Doing the repairs myself, I would add less than $75 for fluids, or misc parts (gaskets, hoses, etc...) and the car would last a couple more years. Only junked it when the car got to the point of the frame "sagging" (unfortunately I don't do welding).
Re:This is too true by akintayo · 2004-04-19 05:28 · Score: 1

You also need to consider the potential opportunity cost of owning an old car. Most working people can not afford to miss work due to car problems.

You should also remember that most people cannot fix their own cars. Most car repair shops eventually phase out older cars, my 1990 Honda Accord was on the 'soon to be phased out' list back in 2000. And the reputation of car repair shops, has been well earned. Also replacement parts for older cars can become quite scarce, and somewhat pricey. Not close to U$150 to replace a bulb, but a bit high.

--
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
Re:This is too true by bigjnsa500 · 2004-04-19 05:38 · Score: 2, Informative

The cost of owning an older car is nowhere near as much as a new car. Especially with monthly payment for FIVE years. As long as you keep the maintenance, the two probable replacements will be engine and tranny. Total including labor is probably $3-4 grand. Compare that to a price of a new car. There's your savings.

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Re:This is too true by Eraser_ · 2004-04-19 06:20 · Score: 1

When the battery in my 2000 Jetta came up with a dead cell the other day, I went to replace it. (This was the stock dealership battery, surprised it lasted this long) The thing is encased in plastic, with a power distribution and spare fuse box on top of it, and the plastic houses some insulation. The bolt/metal bit which holds the battery on though, was way at the bottom of all this and extremely hard to see with this plastic housing, but so is the way to get the housing off. A few screws, pops, clicks, and snaps later, we found the metal bit which holds the battery in and swapped it out. Of course, AutoZone didn't have the battery in stock, but we got one "close enough" for $25 less than the right one would be.

My car is no worse for wear, and has a couple of those spare parts removed. Always remember, most any plastic housing is no more than just spare parts designed to shy you away from the engine.
Re:This is too true by SmackDown · 2004-04-19 07:16 · Score: 2, Informative

And notice that those plastic panels come off with the twist of a few thumb screws, on 90% of modern cars. Underneath these panels, (surprise!) is an easy to work on, clean, efficient, modern engine, with very few wires (busses are a Good Thing) and no vacuum lines (computers are a Good Thing). This makes the engine compartment really, really, really simple to figure out. It is incredibly easy to fix almost any "backyard mechanic" problem on a well engineered modern car. I have replaced fuel rails, injectors, spark plugs, throttle bodies, intake manifolds, exhaust manifolds, accessories, radiator, heads, etc. on many kinds of newer cars (1990s-2000s) and it is easy. I used to have a 1982 Volvo 245 GLT. Talk about a pain in the arse to repair.
Re:This is too true by Kiryat+Malachi · 2004-04-19 08:41 · Score: 1

Of course, if I keep my new car for twenty years, I'll have spent less on it than on your car you bought in 1980 and kept until 2000, because newer cars are designed to run with less and less frequent scheduled maintenance.

--

---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Re:This is too true by bigjnsa500 · 2004-04-19 08:50 · Score: 1

If you mean its meant to run 100,000 miles without you checking anything, don't believe it my friend. That's a load of bull and the entire mechanic community knows it. Its just a sales gimmick.

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Re:This is too true by Kiryat+Malachi · 2004-04-19 08:55 · Score: 1

No, I bring it in for oil changes every 5k miles (manufacturer recommends 7500), and I replace fluids and all that, and I'm sure I'll have to replace brake pads and tires. But I don't need tuneups every 20k miles, because that functionality is taken care of by ECM. I don't need new plugs as often. Etc. Etc.

The odds are pretty good that my maintenance costs are lower than that vintage car's were when it was new. And its costs down the road will remain lower.

--

---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Re:This is too true by Quikah · 2004-04-19 10:37 · Score: 1

i am not unwilling I just don't have a "backyard" to do repairs in. The apartment management gets kind of upity when I try to change my spark plugs in the parking lot, I can't imagine what they would say about changing the engine out. :)

--
Q.

AKA "Laserjet Printer Syndrome" by Tablizer · 2004-04-19 04:07 · Score: 1

nuf sed

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:Oxymoron? by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2004-04-19 04:07 · Score: 4, Funny

Entertainment while you wait for the ambulance to arrive. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

--
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!

Re:Oxymoron? by bitmason · 2004-04-19 04:07 · Score: 4, Informative

Materials can be strong (which I take to mean high yield strength in this context) and brittle (low deformation before fracture). In other words, it can take a fair bit of force to cause any damage at all, but when you pass a certain point, it just breaks rather than deforming plastically.

Of course, "strong" isn't a very precise term when talking about materials and different types of strength are better suited for different tasks.

Re:Oxymoron? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2004-04-19 04:08 · Score: 4, Informative

If the radiator mount is strong, how can it be brittle at the same time?

High tensile strength, low ductile strength.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"

Strong but brittle by phorm · 2004-04-19 04:08 · Score: 1

Perhaps strong against a sustained force, but brittle against a sharp impact (or vise-versa)? If you think titanic-like the hull was actually very strong, but under cold/ocean conditions the metal became more fragile allowing it to be punctured.

Re:Oxymoron? by RollingThunder · 2004-04-19 04:08 · Score: 4, Informative

It takes a stronger force than other metals to begin to deform, but once it does, it shatters or cracks rather than bending.

Bic Cars by thales · 2004-04-19 04:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

I Have bought cars like a Bic Lighter for years. Get a Cheap one in the 500 to 1000 dollar price range, drive it till it breaks down and go get another one.

With New Car payments in the 400 dollar plus range if an 800 dollar car lasts over two months (most do) you are ahead of the people driving new cars. The Champ junker I bought was a 200 dollar 1977 Caprice that lasted 3 years and still fetched 75 bucks from the scrap yard!

--
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est

Re:Bic Cars by MrEnigma · 2004-04-19 04:13 · Score: 1

The only problem being...if you have insurance quotes for a year...plus the registration and what not for each car...

Most people want to have a semi-reliable car they can take for decent trips without having the hassle of it breaking down.

But if you can do it...and don't care...it's cheaper..

--
GeekWares - Buy and Download Today!
Re:Bic Cars by Pfhreakaz0id · 2004-04-19 04:15 · Score: 3, Funny

a person after my own heart. I once had a nissan sentra with 270K miles when the odometer stopped, and I drove it for another year.

Best thing was when I took it to the shop to get the breaks fixed (got a cheap break dude who would do it for $40, so why do it myself). He said "you know you head gasket is leaking oil right? you should get that fixed, but it's like $600-$800. You'll blow the engine and get stranded" (he knew I had a long commute). My response " guess it's time to get that cell phone I've been thinking about.."

--
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Re:Bic Cars by Casca · 2004-04-19 04:19 · Score: 1

I absolutely have to agree. I drive an older model BMW. Even when I have to replace something expensive on it, like the driveshaft ($500), I'm still waaaay ahead of my neighbor. He has a $50,000 Jeep, his payments are in the $700/month range. So I keep spending about $1000/year on repairs, and avoid the nasty new car payments.

--
Casca
Re:Bic Cars by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 04:22 · Score: 2, Funny

But were you scorin with the ladies? Cause that's all a car is, an extension of ones mental Johnson.
Re:Bic Cars by Fammy2000 · 2004-04-19 04:32 · Score: 2, Funny

Replacement cars are too much of a pain for me. No way I would want to rewire my car with CAT5 every few months. Maybe I'll upgrade to wireless on my next car and go junker. Is the G standard overkill?

--
If I had something intelligent to say, I would have said it.
Re:Bic Cars by thales · 2004-04-19 04:32 · Score: 1

Since the car is a disposable "Bic Lighter" you don't bother with collison insurance. The deductable would be close to the cost of the car. If you wreck it you do the same thing you do if it breaks down, get another one. That means all you need is liability insurance so you save money on Insurance. Ad Volorum taxes are a hell of a lot cheaper on a 500 dollar car than on a 20,000 dollar car so you save on registration.

--
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Re:Bic Cars by chris_mahan · 2004-04-19 04:35 · Score: 1

If you are married, then congrats. I couldn't get my wife to look at a car that's more that 6 mo old.

--
"Piter, too, is dead."
Re:Bic Cars by 1c3m4n85 · 2004-04-19 04:41 · Score: 1

And I as well, after I wrecked my 91 lumina, I spent $700 on a 1982 Volvo DL, which now has 241k on it and is still running like the day it was built. !All Hail Swedish Engineering!
Re:Bic Cars by King_TJ · 2004-04-19 04:45 · Score: 1

Yeah.... but your argument doesn't sound quite so convincing when you think of some of the potential consequences of driving nothing but "beaters".

1. What if my $500-1000 car breaks down on me when I'm in a hurry to get to work? Is it really worth the cost savings if it causes me to lose my job?

2. Like it or not, the car you drive makes a statement about you. (Just like the clothes you choose to wear, others make initial judgements about you based on them.) When I'm driving to a client's place for consulting work, do I want them to see me pulling up in some rusty, 10+ year old junker car?

I'm not denying there are some really good reasons to own a well-used, cheap car. I just think it's often wiser to own one of them in conjunction with something a little bit nicer. Use your beater car for days when the weather's bad, or for generic errands around town, etc. Keep your nicer car for situations where minimal risk of a breakdown (and lost time) is important.
Re:Bic Cars by LetterJ · 2004-04-19 04:51 · Score: 1

I know my insurance is done by month and prorated if I switch vehicles. Also, in Minnesota, the registration is pretty cheap and follows the car, meaning you don't have to buy new license plate tabs until they actually expire.

As far as reliability is concerned, you can actually mitigate this while still following the cheapskate way. You just have your next car sitting in the driveway under a tarp for when the current one breaks down.

If I wasn't married, I'd still be living this way.

--

The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
Re:Bic Cars by JudgeFurious · 2004-04-19 04:52 · Score: 1

Jeep makes a vehicle that costs $50,000?

That's news to me. Not that I'm calling you a liar, I'm not. I just had no idea. The entire concept of a $50K car or paying $700 a month for anything I'm not living in is beyond my comprehension.

Wow.

--
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Re:Bic Cars by karnal · 2004-04-19 04:52 · Score: 1

Driveshaft?

Why would you have to replace the driveshaft???? Wowza.

--
Karnal
Re:Bic Cars by oyenstikker · 2004-04-19 05:06 · Score: 1

The mid-late 80s BMWs (or at least the 3 series) have a significant occurance of out of balance driveshafts. The whole car vibrates through a few speed ranges (i.e. mine vibrates between 18-20 and 26-28mph) and rips the carrier bushing apart.

You could take you chances getting a used one from a junkyard, replacing it yourself, and hoping its better balanced than your old one (what I plan to do). and keep the price down. The only problem is that nearly all the E30s (mid-late 80's 3 series) are still running - hard to find in junkyards.

--
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Re:Bic Cars by Yartrebo · 2004-04-19 05:12 · Score: 1

That $50k is probably after adding in air conditioning, sunroof, rust-proofing, extended warranty, power windows, power seats, heated seats, DVD player, etc.

Options can add a lot to the cost of the car.
Re:Bic Cars by Vindicator9000 · 2004-04-19 05:33 · Score: 1

Why would you have to replace the driveshaft????
I had to have the driveshaft replaced in an '86 Chrysler 5th Avenue because a U-joint froze and caused it to break and fall into the street. Luckily it fell aft-end first, not causing it to puncture the gas tank as seems to happen so often to prison vans. Apparently there's some bearings or something in there that you have to replace/have greased periodically. But hey, I was 16 at the time (circa 1995), and didn't know any better.
What's interesting is that the car was in my family for its entire life, until we gave it away at 260k miles, and it's still running without any major maintenance, which really surprises me for as big a piece of crap it was.
Wowza.
Indeed, Ken.
Re:Bic Cars by Lxy · 2004-04-19 05:34 · Score: 1

Not to mention car insurance and title fees. A $500 car will pay for itself in about a month.

I proudly drive my 1991 Ford Probe. 220,000 miles on that baby. Exhaust system fell apart last fall, I just cut it all off. Catalytic convertor is fine and my neighbors don't mind the sound of a diesel truck. New brakes: $20 + beer for the guy installing them. I found out the other day that my car has been running for about a month with almost no oil. I know my engine doesn't hold 5 quarts, so if I add 4 and it's still a bit low... well, you do the math. That obnoxious clanging sound went away too. My wife is less scared of driving it now. It runs quieter and stops at intersections now.

--

There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Re:Bic Cars by keytoe · 2004-04-19 05:38 · Score: 1

Preach it brother! I've been toolin' around in my $400 '81 Toyota Starlet for over a year now, and I swear the thing has got another 100K miles in it.

Even with $20 a month on gas (at ~$2 a gallon!) and insurance, my work has ended up paying for that car three times over with my expense reimbursements for mileage. I'll drive it into the ground, then go find another one - though I will admit that it sounds like you are driving around in an empty beer can when it rains (and it rains here in Eugene).

--
Culture is more than commerce
Re:Bic Cars by theguru · 2004-04-19 05:40 · Score: 1

I drive an 89 Volvo 745 Turbo.. I paid $1500 for it 2 years ago. It has over a quarter of a million miles on it. I have put another $1000 into the car fixing little things here and there (engine wiring harness started acting up after 15 years in a turbo engine compartment.. not bad!), and in routine stuff like oil changes, filters, some new hoses. $104.17/month. I only carry liability and uninsured motorist coverage on it. My taxes and car tag run me $35/year + $25/year emissions test here in Atlanta.

My wife drives the "new" car in the family. It's a 98 Corolla, that she's had since new. She has recently realized how much the car's value has depreciated(While my 89 is still pretty much worth the $1500 I paid for it). It is now old enough that it also has to be tested for emissions anually, and the tag and taxes run about $175. We keep full coverage on it for piece of mind if nothing else. She also used to think it was horrible that I had to buy a $150 air mass meter for my Volvo, followed by the engine harness the next month ($350). Then she took her car in for the 60k mile service and got hit with over $900 of services (timing belt, leaking oil pan gasket, transmission service and filter, etc.). She's now thinking that I might look for a slightly newer, old Volvo for her.
Re:Bic Cars by jred · 2004-04-19 05:41 · Score: 1

I've also learned it's a good idea to keep a skateboard in the trunk, just in case :)

--

jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
Re:Bic Cars by jred · 2004-04-19 05:44 · Score: 3, Funny

That's too bad. I was talking to my gf the other day about engagement rings, and how many months of salary you're "supposed" to spend on them. Her comment? "That's like, 3 or 4 cars!" :)

--

jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
Re:Bic Cars by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · 2004-04-19 06:04 · Score: 1

I tried that for a couple years. The practice stopped abruptly when I got stranded in Flint, MI on the ugly-cold weekend before christmas last year with some sort of mystery problem and the shop I towed it to wanted to rape me because it wasn't REALLY american (even though it was a pontiac).

Not that I bought a new car, but with the mfrs trying so hard to peddle new cars, used cars are remarkably cheap right now.
Re:Bic Cars by Jonny+Ringo · 2004-04-19 06:15 · Score: 1

Why get a cell phone and ruin a perfectly good adventure!!
Re:Bic Cars by aristofanes · 2004-04-19 06:23 · Score: 1

A friend has just leased a chev suv/pickup It has more electronic gadgets than a space shuttle. He doesn't care because the dealer will fix anything under warranty.
BUT, who is going to buy this when the lease ends?
I certainly could not afford to keep all the gadgets working.
Re:Bic Cars by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 06:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

Interesting point. I drive a fairly old, fairly safe saab. I can easily afford a mercedes, but I don't buy one because there are far, far better things to do with my money. Getting one from A to B is all a car needs to do (for me). However, the $39,000 I saved has gone towards countless guitars, studio gear, computers, a piano, a canal boat... and I still have a shitpile of cash left.

You don't want people thinking - I don't know - that you're such a lowlife you can't afford a decent car. I find it hard to follow that kind of logic. Are people who make serious judgements about you based on what car you drive your kind of people? Maybe so. I don't want people thinking I would waste such a *useful* quantity of money on something that, to anyone with their head screwed on, is little more than a utility.
Re:Bic Cars by Suidae · 2004-04-19 06:45 · Score: 1

My story is similar. Thats why semi-restored classics are nice. They can look pretty good, be cheap and easy to repair, and people kinda-sorta admire it when you pull up in it.

Who'd drive a 2000 mustang when you can have a '67?
Re:Bic Cars by rmezzari · 2004-04-19 06:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Tip: Dump the whore ASAP. If this is the kind of thing that she digs, then probably she is not worth it.

Does she at least work to pay for crap like this or the sucker (you) do all the hard work so she can spend it?

--
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds !"
Re:Bic Cars by Ixitar · 2004-04-19 06:54 · Score: 1

Bill Norris, the former CEO of Control Data Corporation drove an old pickup truck. He was the head of a major corporation. What does that say about your image conscious view of things.

The people who really matter don't care about those things.
Re:Bic Cars by White+Shade · 2004-04-19 08:35 · Score: 1

yeah but everyone knows that the "Car to Johnson" relationship is *inverse*, so the guy with the crappy car probably has a monster Johnson, cuz he knows that all he needs to do is wear some tightish pants to do all the picking up he'd ever need to do. Consequently, he can get away with a poo-ass car.

It's the people with the ridiculously large and expensive cars who need to worry about THEIR Johnsons, and have to, well, 'compensate' as it were.

Just an observation.

--
ìì!
Re:Bic Cars by chris_mahan · 2004-04-19 08:36 · Score: 1

Thanks for the kind words.

Yes, she does pay for it.

Anyway, her cooking is top-rate.

--
"Piter, too, is dead."
Re:Bic Cars by M-G · 2004-04-19 10:35 · Score: 1

Jeep makes a vehicle that costs $50,000?

He might have been stretching a bit, but fully loading a Grand Cherokee Overland 4x4 will get you a sticker price of $42,150.
Re:Bic Cars by M-G · 2004-04-19 10:37 · Score: 1

You could take you chances getting a used one from a junkyard, replacing it yourself, and hoping its better balanced than your old one (what I plan to do). and keep the price down.

Why not visit your local driveshaft shop and have them rebalance it?
Re:Bic Cars by M-G · 2004-04-19 10:39 · Score: 1

Get a Cheap one in the 500 to 1000 dollar price range, drive it till it breaks down and go get another one.

Even if you don't go to this extreme, remember that if you buy a new(er) car and have to take out a loan, you'll need to carry full insurance coverage. If you have a cheap car, it's silly to carry anything beyond liability insurance.
Re:Bic Cars by boots@work · 2004-04-19 10:41 · Score: 1

I Have bought cars like a Bic Lighter for years. Get a Cheap one in the 500 to 1000 dollar price range..

Do I have a lighter deal for you!
Re:Bic Cars by Ender_Stonebender · 2004-04-19 11:17 · Score: 1

Well, if you've got a '77 Caprice (as it happens, I do), you can literally put a bicycle in the trunk, which I find a lot easier to get around on than a skateboard. (I haven't actually tried this, but I have no doubt that it would work - I might have to take the spare tire out for it to work, though.)

And if you have a station wagon, everyone can see what's in your trunk, so I wouldn't recommend keeping anything there. (My other car is a '94 Ford Escort wagon, so I've got experience with this one as well.)

--Ender

--
Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
Re:Bic Cars by my02wrxsti · 2004-04-19 14:21 · Score: 1

Get a new wife then ;-)
My wife just sold her 2001 Subaru Impreza WRX and downsized to a A$3200 SAAB 900 from 1988. Money saved and I have been having a ball working on the thing. 280000km and still running like a top and getting 11L/100km
Re:Bic Cars by toddestan · 2004-04-19 14:47 · Score: 1

Actually, nowadays you can get a pretty decent $2000 car that 5-6 years of life left in it. I'm thinking along the lines of a 7-10 year old base model Nissan Sentra/Toyota Corolla. Those things just go.
Re:Bic Cars by Tiro · 2004-04-19 18:40 · Score: 1

lol... I still drive a 1978 Chevrolet Caprice.
It will probably run for thirty more years.
My dad buys cars every twenty years or so, after he wrecked his Gremlin he bought a Citation in 1982 and then an Impala in 2002. [The Caprice was inherited from a relative].
But my point is, I think your tactic is kind of silly. I bet you could get a $500 to $1000 car to run for a long time for cheap if you aren't too hard on it, assuming it was a good model to begin with.
Re:Bic Cars by oyenstikker · 2004-04-20 06:55 · Score: 1

That sounds like a good idea, I hadn't thought of it. I'll see if I can find somebody who does it. Thanks.

--
The masses are the crack whores of religion.

Ok... this one has got issues by Craptastic+Weasel · 2004-04-19 04:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

"We're moving closer and closer to the disposable car," says Dan Bailey, an executive vice president at Carstar, the largest auto-body repair franchise in the United States.

Um...Am I the only one who thinks there are probably numerous reasons why this is a bad idea/statement? Disposable Car? People in other countires must love our frame of mind. If a brand new BMW (as in story) costs more to replace the air bags than the car, than somebody please, sell me a BMW sans airbags. I'll throw in a five point harness, reinforce the subframe, and sign a waiver. I think I have a rain check for a mid-life crisis around here somewhere....

No... really... disposable car = huh? Recycled car / rethink industry as a whole = hah!
besides, does anyone here in the IT industry really want to figure out why the 2010 Ford Festiva is having a hard time finding drivers (pun?) for it's various parts?...

Re:Ok... this one has got issues by Yartrebo · 2004-04-19 05:17 · Score: 1

I'll throw in a five point harness

That sounds like a very good idea. Considering that they're cheap, they give a feeling of safety, and are probably effective (they are used in race cars), why aren't they used for consumer cars? The simple seat belt has saved far more lives than air bags, so intuition would be that a better seat belt would be better than air bags.

Does anyone know why they are not in use? Are there safety/design issues that I don't understand?
Re:Ok... this one has got issues by Craptastic+Weasel · 2004-04-19 07:19 · Score: 1

Actually, I watched a special on Discovery a while back that demonstrated their use in future vehicles.

I think the biggest hurdle is that a five point harness is rather uncomfortable, and some* people would rather sacrifice comfort for safety. In the show the seatbelts looked as if they had some design specifications that made them a bit more comfortable, and they were presented as something that we may see in the near future.
(Sorry, hunted for a link, couldn't find one)

I only other thing I can think of is there is probably a bit of a difference in the way crumple zones act on a air bag protected car as opposed to one that is built with the frame/ chassis as a solid design, with the driver firmly harnessed in. I keep thinking of the old science class egg drop contest:
Air Bags would be akin to filling the container up with shaving cream, while a harness would be more like solidly mounting the egg to the center of the box, and dampening the blow to the areas where the outer container meets the inner container.
Re:Ok... this one has got issues by Jonathan_S · 2004-04-19 08:01 · Score: 1

I'll throw in a five point harness

That sounds like a very good idea. Considering that they're cheap, they give a feeling of safety, and are probably effective (they are used in race cars), why aren't they used for consumer cars?
Possibly something to do with the approximately half of humans who like to, at least occasionally, wear skirts. That 5th strap really only works with pants.
Re:Ok... this one has got issues by Valdrax · 2004-04-20 05:25 · Score: 1

I'm sure you realize in retrospect that the "executive vice president at Carstar, the largest auto-body repair franchise in the United States" didn't say this with the implication that it was a good thing, right?

--
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").

The parts industry by heyitsme · 2004-04-19 04:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

It is ironic hearing this news from the auto industry. Replacement parts for cars have been notoriously marked up. I went in to purchase a knob for my car's A/C (a plain old molded plastic knob about the size of a golf ball) and they wanted to charge me $12 for it. After a bit of cajoling on my behalf, I was able to get it for cost: $0.79.

I doubt that the parts themselves are too expensive to replace that makes some repairs seem unfeasible (after all, the automakers get parts so cheap in bulk), but rather it has been realized that they cannot add that extra 1000% markup on a per part basis, so why not make the consumer buy a whole new car? (where the markup is still 200-500% from cost)

Re:Oxymoron? by the_2nd_coming · 2004-04-19 04:08 · Score: 1

my question is, what car do they drive that does not crunch when it runs into stuff?

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3

Re:Oxymoron? by djward · 2004-04-19 04:09 · Score: 1

Same way Peanut Brittle is just that - strong but brittle. Try applying slow pressure to it; it's hard to break, even if you apply a lot of force. But hit it suddenly with a mallet and it shatters.

Magnesium metal is the same way. Under road stresses, it holds the radiator in place securely. Run the truck into a tree, however, and the mount falls apart.

Expensive Electronics? by CatGrep · 2004-04-19 04:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

increased use of expensive electronics

The use of electronics in cars was supposed to make them cheaper not more expensive. The problem isn't generally the 'expensive electronics' the problem usually is that there aren't enough trained technicians to fix electronic problems. Most mechanics are trained in, well mechanics, not electronics.

xenon high-intensity-discharge headlights: $3,000 each

I'm thinking this isn't a general problem. How many people are buying cars that have $6000 worth
of headlights alone? Damn, those must be some mighty fine headlights, why not just equip the car with nightvision goggles, it would be cheaper.

Specialist technicians need advanced reading, problem-solving, and basic electronics skills.... The best people to find are those who have worked in the IT [information technology] industry.

I've actually been thinking that automotive electronics diagnostics & repair could be a good field to get into - it can't be outsourced and the demand is there.

Re:Expensive Electronics? by mikeee · 2004-04-19 04:14 · Score: 1

You're not kidding; an experienced mechanic working a bit of overtime can easily get his salary into 6-figures. It's really not far off from the IT payscale.
Re:Expensive Electronics? by AlienFactor · 2004-04-19 05:23 · Score: 1

I've actually been thinking that automotive electronics diagnostics & repair could be a good field to get into - it can't be outsourced and the demand is there.
And, demand for auto repair tends to go up during a recession, as people put off buying new(er) cars and hang on to their old cars longer.
Re:Expensive Electronics? by GuyinVA · 2004-04-19 05:27 · Score: 1

The use of electronics in cars was supposed to make them cheaper not more expensive.
The problem is not the cost of electronics. The problem is the amount of electronics. Back in the day, there was maybe 1 or 2 'black boxes' for emmissions. Now you have a control module for the memory seats, the GPS, the stereo, the climate control, the gauge cluster, the ABS, the airbags, the automatic transmission, the emmissions/fuel injection, etc.
Re:Expensive Electronics? by Laebshade · 2004-04-19 05:32 · Score: 1

those must be some mighty fine headlights, why not just equip the car with nightvision goggles, it would be cheaper.
Nightvision goggles don't project light for the driver. This problem is two fold: the driver can't see, and people can't see the car (at night). If you're going to get some nightvision goggles, just get them from Jiggle Billy.

Note: don't google for Jiggle Billy.
Re:Expensive Electronics? by Malc · 2004-04-19 05:48 · Score: 1

xenon high-intensity-discharge headlights: $3,000 each

I'm thinking this isn't a general problem. How many people are buying cars that have $6000 worth
of headlights alone? Damn, those must be some mighty fine headlights, why not just equip the car with nightvision goggles, it would be cheaper.

Your point might make some sense if reality really were as sensational as those numbers. HIDs are expensive, but not that much. I have a friend who fitted Xenon HID's to his 2000 VW Passat. The total was less than USD$1500 (or 1,800 - can't remember). That was four years ago when they cost more, and they were specially imported from Europe, making them more expensive. Looking through Clubb5 it's possible that they now cost less than $1,000, or even less than €600 if you're in Germany. Compare that with $300-400 for just Hella HID-lookalike projector headlamps (before you buy the halogen bulbs for them).

My guess is that $6000 worth of HID is on a luxury big-premium car like a Mercedes CL500.
Re:Expensive Electronics? by CatGrep · 2004-04-19 06:44 · Score: 1

The total was less than USD$1500 (or 1,800 - can't remember)

Still pretty pricey if you ask me, even if they were only $200 each it would be pretty expensive for headlights. Just curious, what's the motivation for spending that much for headlights?
Is there some kind of coolness factor among car-geeks or something? Are they really _that_ much better? I seem to be doing fine with the stock headlights in my car (halogen, I believe) that cost about $15/each to replace.

I'm guessing that the Xenon HID's are the blueish tinted lights that are so annoying when you're on the recieving end, am I right?
Re:Expensive Electronics? by Malc · 2004-04-19 10:29 · Score: 1

They're annoying because they're not regulated in N. America. People either go for higher power blue halogen bulbs which glare a lot without the E-spec light cut-off, or they do their own HID conversion/upgrade and screw it up. People mis-align them, or don't get them with self-levelling or washer units.

This page shows the difference. E-spec lights can be much brighter but the cut-off ensures that there is actually *less* glare. This page shows somebody fitting the HIDs themselves. As you can see, they started with E-spec lights with halogen bulbs... but misconfigured. The HIDs look okay though - in fact the head-on shots show how little glare they really produce (compare ankle vs belly height photos).

As for the blue-tint... I think that's people trying to make their bulbs look whiter and mimic Xenon. Xenon bulbs can be bluer, but it depends on the manufacturer and the colour temperature of the particular bulb.

I didn't buy in to the HID upgrades a few years back as they were too expensive ($1,500), but I'm looking around now. I would love to find some bi-xenon's for my '99 Passat, even used ones. I think it's well worth it. We have daytime running lights here in Canada so I wonder if it would save me anything in the long run due to the lower power requirements...

Re:From sys admin... by AndroidCat · 2004-04-19 04:09 · Score: 1

Probably at quite a raise in pay too.

I've got my socket set (metric and Imperial) and my torque wrench, I am so ready!

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

Re:Oxymoron? by Antos700 · 2004-04-19 04:09 · Score: 1

If the radiator mount is strong, how can it be brittle at the same time? It means that as long as the weight is applied how it is meant to be (staight down for example) it is strong, but it can't take stress from other angles, hence is considered to also be brittle (easy to break).

Re:Oxymoron? by Monsieur+Canard · 2004-04-19 04:09 · Score: 2, Informative

Basic solid mechanics.

Strength is related to how much force a material can take before it yields (bends plastically).

Brittleness is a function of toughness (ductility), or how much impact a material can take before it breaks.

For most materials, strength and ductility are inversely proportional. It takes some fancy alloying and creative manufacturing to create a material that has both.

For instance, a lot of titanium alloys are very strong, but also very brittle.

--
He took a duck to the face at 250 knots.

Re:Oxymoron? by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · 2004-04-19 04:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Aluminum. Not very strong, but how often do you see it shatter? It just bends

But if it doesn't shatter, then how can you expect to make a fortune selling replacement parts?

--
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips

Re:I thought disposable cars were already out ther by Tablizer · 2004-04-19 04:10 · Score: 1, Funny

...Pintos, for example. Problem with them was that they disposed of the owners too...

Don't tell me, they were popular in Soviet Russia

--
Table-ized A.I.

After-market services by lukewarmfusion · 2004-04-19 04:10 · Score: 4, Informative

My father works for a company that produces aftermarket automotive wiring. He's noticing a lot of products that are designed to supplant this kind of individual part - by combining multiple parts, they prevent people from replacing just the part in question.

So instead of replacing your spark plugs (~$15), you have to replace the plugs, the wiring, etc. The total cost? More than $100 for some. It's intentional - it's like soldering your CPU to your motherboard so you have to replace the whole board in order to upgrade/replace your CPU. I believe Packard Bell used to do this, and look where they are now.

Re:After-market services by Jens_UK · 2004-04-19 04:50 · Score: 1

It's not intentional to screw over the repair person/customer, but to make assembly easier. When, for example, the domestics have expensive labor in the plants, ever part that can be combined at a supplier is one less step of labor that they have to pay for at the higher rates.

--
Give life
Re:After-market services by elandal · 2004-04-19 04:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

I already treat mobo + CPU + RAM as a single package. Soldering them together wouldn't make much of a difference to me - assuming combinations I want would be available for sale.

If I want a new CPU (at leats 50% speed increase, otherwise it just isn't worth the trouble), I need to get a new mobo because the old mobo won't support the new CPU. And then I need to get new RAM as the old RAM isn't compatible with the new mobo. Or is just so slow that I wouldn't realize the speed increase from CPU change really.
At that point I think about moving the old comp as is to some supportive role (replace old firewall, fileserver, mailserver, or something). So, I'll look at the oldest comp to replace that with the one being replaced currently, and notice that the 7 year old case won't take the new mobo formfactor anymore, and would need new PSU anyway, and so on.

So, I end up buying pretty much a whole new computer unless I'm willing to ditch mobo + CPU + RAM that's at least twice as fast as the oldest one still in use.
Re:After-market services by lukewarmfusion · 2004-04-19 06:10 · Score: 1

But consider the repair costs.. if your stick of memory needs to be replaced, wouldn't you be furious if you had to also swap out the motherboard and CPU?
Re:After-market services by elandal · 2004-04-19 06:21 · Score: 1

Depends. If I end up with a piece of junk that is partially functional (good mobo & CPU, bad RAM) but can't be used anymore, and will have to pay for all the new parts (or rather part combination), then yes.

If the parts were welded together, where the sticks of RAM have lifetime warranty, I'd of course demand lifetime warranty for the RAM still. So, if it means the shop will replace the whole due to lifetime warranty of RAM, then it's OK for me.

Still, considering I buy the combination together, if there are problems I'll take the whole combination to the shop. Even when I know it's bad RAM - I still take mobo & CPU to the shop with the RAM.

As it happened recently that something failed in a fairly new computer of mine, and even while I diagnosed it as bad RAM but took the whole computer to the shop, they did replace mobo, CPU, RAM, and the PSU - all within the warranty, for no cost at all. PSU was the strange one in the group, but as the report noted that old PSU was giving spikes, I guess it was all for the better. If I had taken just a stick of RAM to the shop, might be I'd have an unstable computer now, causing lots of frustration but no obvious diagnosis.

It's not just electronics by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-04-19 04:10 · Score: 2, Informative

Cars have been very hard to maintain for years, well before the avent of EFI, computers and all.

Engine bays are so small these days (either because the car is a compact or because the emphasis is put on the roomiest interior possible) that one often has to drop the entire engine to change things like a timing chain or an alternator.

I have an econobox here that I brought to a small garage because I have a sump gasket leak, and the guy said that he'd take so much time just getting the engine out and back in that it's just not worth fixing. (On a side note, modern cars are supposed to be environmentally friendly, but cars that are left leaking oil or plain junked because they're not economically worth fixing don't seem very green to me).

Anyway, the short is, on my old '69 Charger, I can pass full size regular tool around the engine and still have spare room to work, while I'd need very expensive, specialized tools, and very flexible cervicals to work on an econobox. And that's not counting the electronics at all...

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Re:Oxymoron? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 04:10 · Score: 1, Interesting

There is a process called "strengh-hardening," used to make materials harder and stronger. Cold-working is one way of doing this. One side effect of this is being brittle, as opposed hot-working, where the crystal structures tend to rearrange close to their original state. Being brittle means more chance for dislocation and fracture. Example, try taking a cheap cafeteria spoon and bending at the part where the spoon part meets the handle. After many repetitions the section that was bent will become harder and harder to bend. It is getting stronger. After serveral more repetitions fratuce occurs. That is cold-working. Just FYI.

Re:Oxymoron? by Moofie · 2004-04-19 04:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Strength can mean many different things. A rope is strong in tension, but weak in compression. A glass pillar can be pretty strong in compression, but it's brittle. Aluminum is strong and light, but can be susceptible to fatigue under cyclical loading conditions. Magnesium is similar to titanium and aluminum, but more brittle. (and flammable.)

A brittle part will crack and break shortly after exceeding its yield strength. A tough part will stretch and deform after reaching its yield strength, finally breaking at a much higher stress level. However, it is possible for a given brittle part to have a much higher yield strength than a given tough (or ductile) part. The material used, and the production method, and the heat treating process all affect the material's final strength.

In other words, it's kinda complicated. : )

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!

I completely disagree by erroneus · 2004-04-19 04:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

If working, playing or otherwise surviving in the PC world has taught the Slashdot community any lessons at all, it is that the matured concept of standardized modules combined with competition can lower costs incredibly.

Auto manufacturers can go a LONG way to lower the cost of cars and car repair by creating a variety of standardized systems. While it's true that to some extent that style and creativity would be hampered by the inclusion of modular standards for automobiles, the cost issue can be quickly and effectively addressed.

Consider the various levels of standardization that we already enjoy. There are standardized tool sizes. There are standardized bays for electronics in the dash such as radios, CD and even DVD players. The incredibly thin margins on the still surviving PC components market proves out that making automobile components even more standard and modularized could easily address the concern over the rising cost of automotive repair.

In many ways, if the concept were more widely addressed, a great number of matters could be addressed such as handling recalls of various components and even upgrades.

This could open the door to smaller manufacturers to get into the third party parts business... which is exactly why the idea will probably never be realized.

Re:I completely disagree by mhesseltine · 2004-04-19 04:50 · Score: 1

If working, playing or otherwise surviving in the PC world has taught the Slashdot community any lessons at all, it is that the matured concept of standardized modules combined with competition can lower costs incredibly.

Are we speaking of parts costs? The manufacturers already grind down their Tier 1 suppliers to cut costs on the parts. The problem is, they don't pass those savings on to the consumers.

Auto manufacturers can go a LONG way to lower the cost of cars and car repair by creating a variety of standardized systems. While it's true that to some extent that style and creativity would be hampered by the inclusion of modular standards for automobiles, the cost issue can be quickly and effectively addressed.

Again, this assumes that when the auto manufacturer can cut, for example $50 dollars out by buying a standard off-the-shelf part instead of a custom one, that they make a proportial adjustment to the selling price of the vehicle.

Consider the various levels of standardization that we already enjoy. There are standardized tool sizes. There are standardized bays for electronics in the dash such as radios, CD and even DVD players. The incredibly thin margins on the still surviving PC components market proves out that making automobile components even more standard and modularized could easily address the concern over the rising cost of automotive repair.

Standardized tool sizes? So, every engine bolt is a 14mm hex head? Every dash bolt is a T10 Torx?

Also, dash mountings for radios, etc. are hardly standard. GM has their 1.5DIN opening (7" x 3") with a reduced mounting depth, Ford has their front-mount DIN (7" x 2"), the Asian suppliers have rear-mount DIN (7" x 2", but with a trim panel). This is hardly standard.

In many ways, if the concept were more widely addressed, a great number of matters could be addressed such as handling recalls of various components and even upgrades.

This I will agree on. I'd love to hear that the Delco D1023 Seat Belt unit is defective. Then, all I have to do is figure out if my car uses the D1023, or still has some other proprietary seat belt.

Right now, it wouldn't work really well. Once the manufacturers agreed and standardized, it would be better.

This could open the door to smaller manufacturers to get into the third party parts business... which is exactly why the idea will probably never be realized.

This won't be realized because the auto manufacturers could give a shit about their customers. The bottom line is the only line to them. The ideal situation would be for a company to produce an inexpensive, maintainable, reliable mode of transportation that would offer the same benefits as the traditional automobile, but without the price gouging of the large auto companies.

The reason, IMHO, this won't happen is the amount of government regulation that a manufacturer has to go through in order to mass-produce and sell vehicles (crash testing, emissions controls, mandatory airbags, etc.) By the time someone came up with something, the overhead involved would be too great to allow them to get any momentum built up in the marketplace.

--
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation :: Anonymous Coward : Posting
Re:I completely disagree by shfted! · 2004-04-19 05:34 · Score: 1

Actually, a whole pile of parts are reused from year to year in cars... or at least used across models. They tend to be simple things instead of whole units -- like parts of the engine, shocks, brakes, and quite a bit of things, actually. Granted, parts are not interchangeable across manufacturers, but an Opteron doesn't exactly plug into a P4 socket either, does it?

--
He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.

part of the problem.. by Pfhreakaz0id · 2004-04-19 04:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

I guess there must be consumer demand... Last year my wife and I were all set to purchase our first new car (we're 35 and consider cars a horrid waste of money), but we simply could not find a "base" model. Everything has power windows, locks, CD player (actually wanted that).

God forbid you want a car that doesn't have all the crap or *GASP* not an automatic transmission (I'll take the lower gas milage and increased service problems for $800 alex!").

Anway, when we could only find ONE manual, base moodel subaru Forester in the entire STATE and we didn't like that color, we bought a used one at an auction threw a friend for $7k less, 2 years old 28K miles (this is why I don't buy new!).

--
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE

Re:part of the problem.. by shfted! · 2004-04-19 05:40 · Score: 1

In big cities with traffic problems, having a standard is a pain -- not so much the constant shifting you do, but the tremendous wear on the clutch. It can get expensive if you're replacing clutch plates every year. I would drive an automatic, were I living in a big city.

--
He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
Re:part of the problem.. by hb253 · 2004-04-19 05:42 · Score: 1

You know, you're allowed to order any car you want with any options you want and have it custom built for you. Nobody says you have to buy off the dealer's lot!

--
Self awareness - try it!
Re:part of the problem.. by Aidtopia · 2004-04-19 06:07 · Score: 1

not an automatic transmission (I'll take the lower gas milage and increased service problems for $800 alex!")

I, too, prefer manual transmissions for the reasons you suggest (mileage, maintenance cost) as well as because I like the feel of driving one. But I'm currently shopping for a new car and I am surprised to find that for some models, the automatic option gets a higher MPG rating than the manual. Sure, it's a slight difference, but perhaps the technology has gotten to the point that a computer can actually shift more efficiently than I can.

In the Acura TSX, the manual transmission is *heavier* than the automatic. I suspect it's the same physical mechanism, and the difference is whether the shift instructions come from a CPU or a couple of switches on a lever and a placebo clutch pedal.

It might be time to re-think the "manual is cheaper/more efficient/mechanically simpler" heuristic.
Re:part of the problem.. by dragonflea · 2004-04-19 06:10 · Score: 1

There are some good reasons that the "base model" now include many of the tasty trimmings.
While many of these features used to be premium add-ons, now the cost of engineering multiple configurations (one with power doors, one without), combined with Americans' ever-present desire for the luxurious, outweighs the potential cost savings and lost sales incurred by simply not including these features as part of the base product.
Also, transmission/transaxle technology has come quite a long way from when you and I first learned to drive. While it used to be true that manual transmissions had advantages with lower price, lower repairs, and better gas mileage, engineering has now reduced the choice to simply that of personal preference. You'd be hard-pressed to find an automatic transmission that has fewer than four gears (many have 5 or even 6) which does not last the life of the car.
Lastly, I too looked at Subaru Foresters about five years ago, and was dismayed that this company in particular listed many of their amenities as cost-extra options, but failed to actually deliver vehicles to dealerships that didn't have these amenities pre-installed. When I questioned the dealer about getting a base car without the extras, he indicated he'd have to charge me labor costs to remove them.
I ended up with a Honda CR-V. One with a manual transmission at that! <g>
Re:part of the problem.. by kmankmankman2001 · 2004-04-19 06:59 · Score: 1

You do know that you can *order* the car built with or without the options you want, rather than buy what the dealer has on the lot, right? That's how most folks that want base models end up doing it, since (as you found out) dealers rarely stock such models. In fairness to the dealers (a phrase you will almost NEVER hear me say with any frequency) it's not really a sound policy for them to stock such models as they don't sell much.

--
"The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
Re:part of the problem.. by Pfhreakaz0id · 2004-04-19 07:17 · Score: 1

they didn't OFFER one without those "extras". Period. even ordering one (although at least I could have gotten one with a manual in the color I want). Problem was, I found that dealers were less inclined to deal on those.

--
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Re:part of the problem.. by Doctor+Faustus · 2004-04-19 10:03 · Score: 1

An automatic transmission is not the same as a stickshift controlled by a computer; it's a different mechanism. For one thing, automatics existed before using a computer would have been feasible.

It may well be that a few companies are starting to include robotic manual transmissions and calling them automatics, which would be cool. I may enjoy driving a stick, but I won't deny that a computer could do it better.
Re:part of the problem.. by jp10558 · 2004-04-19 11:16 · Score: 1

That is odd. My experiance in NYS anyway has been that the dealer will fall over backwards to order you a car from the dealer... even charging as little as $300 above dealer cost(well, prolly before kickbacks or hidden price lowerings, but not a huge hit for getting THE exact car you want).

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Re:part of the problem.. by JimBobJoe · 2004-04-19 17:53 · Score: 1

but we simply could not find a "base" model

As already noted in another post, automakers love building cars all the same. The fact that 95% of Honda Accords have power windows is a tremendous relief for the assemblyline. (And if you're one of those who insists on getting an Accord without power windows, you have already subsidized at least part of the cost of having the power windows in your car anyway--so you might as well take them. The exception to this subsidization are things like navigation--which is still pretty unusual.)

Next, as the price of cars has gone up, the price of the option as a percentage has gone down--the cost of power windows is so insignificant in comparison to everything else.

Here's another factor--leasing. In leasing options that raise the cars resale value will make little or no change to the monhtly lease cost, since the cost residualizes in the end. All your normal stuff (A/C, power equipment, CD player) work that way. It could be possible for a lease to be more expensive on a base car than a car with power gadgets because the power gadgets have such a powerful effect on resale.

Honestly, if you buy the car, the resale value jups so much with the power equipment (and leather) that it makes financial sense to get it.
Re:part of the problem.. by lythotype · 2004-04-19 23:58 · Score: 1

But the problem is that even if you order a custom option job straight from the factory, you're still limited to what the company is willing to put in the car. Try getting a Dodge Intrepid with a manual transmission! In fact, its getting harder and harder to order a car from the factory with a manual transmission if it has anything larger than a 4 cylinder.
Re:part of the problem.. by sgtrock · 2004-04-20 03:19 · Score: 1

Not necessarily. I prefer pickups to cars, myself. I've owned a new '87 Mazda 4x2 (187,000+ miles), a new '87 F150 4x2 (130,000+ miles) a used '84 Chevy Luv 4x4 (POS! I'll never buy an Isuzu again), and a used '97 F150 4x4 (bought at 12,000 miles, currently at 190,000 miles). All of those vehicles were manuals.

I put a lot of miles on my vehicles. I've got a long commute that combines freeway and city driving in about 50/50 portions. I also spend a fair number of weekends in the woods well over a hundred miles away from home. However, while I drive fairly fast, I rarely accelerate or brake hard. I limit maintenance to changing the oil and filter every 3,500 to 5,000 miles and hitting every second recommended maintenance cycle.

I sold every new vehicle with the same clutch it came with. My current truck still has the same clutch that came from the factory.

I had the '97 F150 in to the dealer at about 80,000 miles for some tranny work after an aftermarket chain overfilled the transaxles and transmission which in turn blew seals. The dealer mechanics had to drop the tranny to get to some of the seals. I told them as long as the tranny and engine were separated, go ahead and replace the clutch assembly. I figured that with that many miles on it, I might as well.

The lead mechanic called me back 3 times to convince me to NOT replace the clutch assembly. He finally told me that the clutch looked brand new. There was simply no point in doing it. He felt that charging me $1,800 for unnecessary work just wasn't right. You can bet that dealer now gets all of my maintenance work. :)

Now, I'm a big believer in preventive maintenance. My approach, however, is to go for complete replacement of major components before they reach their typical EOL. Anyhow, I had the truck in again at 150,000 miles for the major maintenance cycle. When I dropped it off, I told the lead mechanic to plan on a complete overhaul. I didn't want to have to bring it back in because of failing compression, water pump, or what have you. I also told him to plan on replacing the clutch assembly.

Again, the lead mechanic called me back to talk me out of what would have been a pretty large bill. He told me that compression was sound all the way around, and the clutch still was well within tolerances. It certainly feels pretty tight to me.

Anyhow, I started looking at new pickups and SUVs this year, thinking I'll want to replace the '97 with another 4x4 in a year or two when the truck hits 250,000 miles. The dealer that I use for maintenance sells Fords, Dodges, and GM vehicles. Not all that unusual an arrangement here in MN.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Ford no longer offers a manual transmission in ANY of their 1/2 ton pickup line. You CANNOT order a manual transmission. Period. They simply don't make them. If I want a manual tranny, I'll have to move up to a 3/4 ton truck, which is really more than I want or need. As far as SUVs go, forget it. Chevy, same thing. Dodge, same thing.

So, I'm really in a quandary. I've got a dealership whose service group is the most professional and customer oriented that I've ever seen (dealer or third party) that can't sell me the vehicle that I want! I'm either going to have to settle for an automatic transmission, buy more vehicle, or, since no one else sells a half ton pickup in the US, I'll have to (shudder) buy LESS vehicle from a different manufacturer and dealer, then put up with all the uncertainty that implies. Care to guess which way I'm currently leaning?

Sigh. I suppose I could at least take advantage of the opportunity to price a deisel. Now, if I can only find a manufacturer who makes a 3/4 ton with both a deisel AND a manual tranny. Who'da thought that would ever be an issue?
Re:part of the problem.. by hb253 · 2004-04-20 03:42 · Score: 1

That's market driven. Most Americans want automatic transmissions. Why should DaimlerChrysler spend money to provide manual transmissions when a majority of buyers of that type of car don't want one.

--
Self awareness - try it!

Re:Oxymoron? by tdemark · 2004-04-19 04:11 · Score: 1

Assume you have a rod of magnesium and a rod of some material with the same strength, but less brittle.

Both rods are specified to withstand X pounds of force.

At X + 50 lb of force:

The non-magnesium bar deflects some amount under the strain, but doesn't break. The magnesium bar snaps apart.

There's your difference.

- Tony

I agree by MikeHunt69 · 2004-04-19 04:11 · Score: 1

My motorbike, although relatively new (2001), still has carbs. It's hella easy to work on and Im confident to do any/all work myself, including bottom end work when it finally gives way in a few years.

My car, (1992 bmw), Im scared of doing anything more than relatively basic maintainence. (coil packs, oil chage, etc.). You need a handheld device to just get the error codes out of the computer.

Re:I agree by PerspexAvenger · 2004-04-19 04:31 · Score: 1

It's possible you may be able avoid purchasing a fault-code reader, depending on the internals of your car.

IIRC, some of the EMS' support an "Ignition to point 1, hold trip odo button" (or some combo like that) trick which gets you into the in-car diagnostics, or at least part of them.

Gets you fault codes, some other interesting numbers, and an amusing dash test which checks all the dials. Only time I'm likely to see an indicated 150mph in standard trim. :)

Google for your eWhatever type + "fault codes" might get you somewhere.

IT by day, backyard mechanic at night by Jim_Maryland · 2004-04-19 04:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Looks like I'll continue repairing my own vehicle along with the family/friend vehicles.

Really though, many of the repair manuals (I often use the Haynes manuals myself) available for vehicles contain fairly detailed information for troubleshooting and repairing vehicles. I do find that the tools that I have to purchase are becoming more expensive, but it still beats going to the mechanic in most cases. Of course I always look for an excuse to buy new tools.

I find that most people are afraid to attempt even simple repairs so the high tech problems won't change the consumer behavior of running to the shop for any problem. The trend will lead to higher tech mechanics though (higher salary, higher repair bill).

Now the one thing I would appreciate from the auto manufacturer is simplifying the onboard diagnostics. I'll even settle for the blinking LEDs sequences I've seen in some of my older cars.

Re:IT by day, backyard mechanic at night by TheAwfulTruth · 2004-04-19 04:18 · Score: 1

For most cars (GM, Ford, Toyota etc) an OBD 2 scanner costs about $200 and can tell you all about your car's computer diagnostics, so you can tell what is wrong with your car before you take it in for service or even decide if you want to take it on or fix it yourself. You can even reset the engine check light when you have completed the repairs.

Compaired to the cost of most car repairs, buying a scanner is a pretty good deal.

--
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Re:IT by day, backyard mechanic at night by Jim_Maryland · 2004-04-19 04:29 · Score: 1

I have no problem spending the $200 or so for vehicles I own. My problem is that I'm not as willing to spend the $200 to solve another persons vehicle problem and in most cases, neither is the owner.

I always justify getting the new tools/toys over the cost of repair. Fortunately my wife can see it this way too. Now if only I can get her to let me keep some of the money saved to build another computer.
Re:IT by day, backyard mechanic at night by Control+Group · 2004-04-19 04:42 · Score: 1

You're totally correct, for a certain category of repairs. Specifically, the maintenance/normal wear/under-the-hood types of repairs. But the article is referring, it seems, primarily to the stuff that is more difficult (or impossible) for the backyard mechanic to fix: body/frame damage and air bag deployments.

For example, I'm completely comfortable replacing head gaskets, rebuilding transmissions, pulling camshafts and the like. But a cracked frame member? It has to go in somewhere; I can't weld. Of course, there are plenty of backyard mechanics who can do that...but can they weld an aluminum frame member?

The airbags, of course, are hopeless. Now, perhaps you just elect to tear the thing out and make do without them. Fair enough. But the same is true for the seatbelts (with their one-time-use tensioners).

That's the kind of thing that is driving up prices.

Of course, there are also disincentives to working on cars these days. Take my dad's '67 LeMans, on which I spent many hours working: you look under the hood, you see the engine, the radiator, the carb, the alternator, the power steering pump and the intake and exhaust manifolds. You could pretty much stand inside the frame next to the engine without taking anything more than hoses off. Then look at their "new" '94 Grand Prix: you can't even see the ground when you open the hood. And it's only gotten worse in the last decade.

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Re:IT by day, backyard mechanic at night by BoomerSooner · 2004-04-19 04:53 · Score: 1

AutoZone will let you plug into their system for free. Plus the plug in module my mechanic uses cost $4500 not $200.
Re:IT by day, backyard mechanic at night by Jim_Maryland · 2004-04-19 05:09 · Score: 2, Informative

True, you have to pick which repairs your going to do in most cases. I don't do welding repairs either which is why my first car eventually went to the junkyard (it started "sagging" when I'd lift it for repairs and the control arm mount points were "out" too).

As for things like airbags, that definitely requires dealer or competent mechanic replacement. I've been fortunate so far to not have to deal with that yet (knocking on wood - curses, a metal desk).

I actually have two newer cars right now (a 2002 and a 2004) that are both Nissan's. One was a replacement for a 1993 Ford Aerostar, the other was a second vehicle. I've also had a 1997 Suzuki Esteem (which I wouldn't recommend to anyone, maybe a bad one off the line, but parts were difficult to find and pretty expensive/dealer only in most cases) and a 1985 Nissan Sentra. Out of all the vehicles, only the Aerostar had a tight engine compartment. When I look at vehicles now, even new ones, I naturally look at the space I have to work with. I've helped work on a fair number of vehicles (mostly economy class vehicles) and Honda's seem pretty tight in the engine compartment (fortunately they seem pretty reliable, but doing a roadside water pump replacement isn't much fun at night).

I guess from my experience, look at how difficult a common repair will be with your vehicle if your going to do it yourself, or ask a mechanic for some time estimates on common repairs. Mechanics have the resources to provide labor hours for just about any repair plus they'll have insight into which cars they see in the shop too often.
Re:IT by day, backyard mechanic at night by Control+Group · 2004-04-19 07:10 · Score: 1

Are engine compartments opening up again? This would be good news, in my book (I remember a water pump replacement on an '87 Sunbird that required a stupid number of things to be removed just to see the bolts on the thing). I haven't had the chance, though, to look under the hood of any cars newer than about 2000, so perhaps my impression of more modern cars is a bit skewed.

And all my engine experience is going to go out the window when I buy an RX-8 next year...

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Re:IT by day, backyard mechanic at night by Jim_Maryland · 2004-04-19 08:10 · Score: 1

I think it all depends on the car you buy. From the cars I've had, Nissan Sentras (2002 and 2004 models) and the Suzuki Esteem (1997), they have a decent amount of engine compartment space, even with the extras (PS & AC). Compared to the 1985 Sentra that I had a while back, I think I actually have more room to work. (Not quite related - Thankfully Nissan went to using a timing chain over the timing belt on the newer Sentras. I actually had the belt go and snap a valve that dinged up the piston and the wall pretty bad.)

I would guess that your RX-8 will probably take just about every inch of space, but that's to be expected with a performance car. BTW, nice car choice. Specs from the Mazda site are pretty nice. The RX product line has produced some sharp cars. Had a friend with one of the RX-7's from the mid 80's that was fun to ride in.

Honda's seem to be pretty tight in the compartment , but they've been that way for a while. My father and I did a road side repair for a water pump on an 1981 Prelude that practically had us thinking about removing body panels to get access. Not everything on the Honda is bad, but the side room (timing belt, water pump, AC, various belts) is definitely limited.
Re:IT by day, backyard mechanic at night by MadHungarian1917 · 2004-04-19 08:21 · Score: 1

I have done this for years as my specialty did not allow for not showing up.

You need to make friends with the local Snap-On and MAC Tools guys and buy the proper diagnostic tools and you can usually get a good deal on the used ones.
The data for new cars tends to be expensive but if you have a 2-3 year old car the $1200 2004 cartridge will be $200 for the 2000 cartridge which was $1200 new.
Remember the st^H^Hdealer charges $100+ for just reading the codes once.

The average /. er with good mechanical skills can take it from there. If you can build a robot you can fix a modern car.
Re:IT by day, backyard mechanic at night by TheAwfulTruth · 2004-04-20 04:21 · Score: 1

The official toyota one costs "only" $2500. But that's not the point. The point is that you can buy one that does quite a bit towards taking the mystery out of computer diagnosing your engine for only $200. In fact, you can buy one that hooks to your laptop of only $99! You can then graph all the parameters and monitor your engine realtime. These things used to costs multiple thousands.

It can't do everything the shop can do (Sometimes to the users benefit, I.e. the after market devices usually can't fire the airbags) But when the most common problems occur, like a failed 02 sensor, a $99 to $199 gadget can tell you this and allow you to repair your own car just as before. Maybe even better than before.

--
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!

Profit Margins by Effugas · 2004-04-19 04:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's worth pointing out that profit margins for new vehicles are quite large -- I think the last figure I heard, on a variable cost basis, was $3,000 for a $20,000 car. Fixed costs are, of course, enormous -- R&D, testing, compliance, advertising, sunk costs in the factory, etc -- but whipping up one more Corolla is pretty cheap.

In other words, relief to the insurance industry will probably come via mandated replacements by the manufacturer, at cost (or maybe cost+10%). This could get worked into warranty programs, first as a perk, then as something greater.

Keep in mind, if your car is totalled, who's to say you'll buy the same brand next time around? Properly managed (i.e. worked into the cost of each car sold), this isn't a bad strategy for keeping customers loyal to your brand.

Manufacturer replacement is thus almost guaranteed to occur.

--Dan

Re:Profit Margins by Effugas · 2004-04-19 04:18 · Score: 1

As a slight self-addendum:

Notice how refrigerators are sold with an estimate for how much electricity (in dollars) they'll consume per year? I promise you, Sears doesn't _want_ to put that data on the price tag; it's federally mandated that they do.

Expect the same kind of sticker shock to arrive for car insurance multipliers. In other words -- cars that are really expensive to repair, and thus insure, will be forcibly marked as such.

The exemption will come if the manufacturer offers to replace/repair in lieu of "third party repair shops" (who manufacturers despise anyway). Thus, manufacturers get into the replacement business.

Seriously, this is inevitable. Hell, it might very well have been the plan all along.

--Dan
Re:Profit Margins by michael_cain · 2004-04-19 05:14 · Score: 1

Fixed costs are, of course, enormous -- R&D, testing, compliance, advertising, sunk costs in the factory, etc

Also, the American car companies are now paying off on the promises they made to their unions 30-40 years ago. IIRC, the Economist pointed out that every new car sold by GM includes $1300 for pension payments to retired workers. Their article on the competitive position of the Big Three US car makers almost invited the reader to bet on which of them would be the first to declare bankruptcy in order to get out from under their enormous obligations to retirees.

A $3K headlight? by Tony+Hammitt · 2004-04-19 04:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why would anyone want a $3K headlight, or a car that required them? Isn't there a limit to the candlepower a headlight can legally have when driving in a city? Wouldn't any old headlight be good enough for most purposes?

Cars with "features" like that are just conspicuously wasteful. Target market: Paris Hilton, etc. As if paying more for something makes it better.

I'm getting to the point of being shocked speechless by all the willfull stupidity in the world. I paid less than $3000 for a car that I drove over 150K miles (Oldsmobile, still running, I got a car with 4 doors instead when I had kids) now that's what they want for a headlight????? This wastefulness makes me sick.

Re:A $3K headlight? by TheAwfulTruth · 2004-04-19 04:15 · Score: 1

Yeah, that headlight comment is either way off (Maybe $300) or they are quoting a complete rip of dealer. Such lights usually go for about $60 a pair, though I could see maybe as high as $100 if you bought them yourself.

In general the article is correct, but most of the examples are extreme and unusual. It makes the entire article look just a little too Chicken Little to take seriously.

--
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Re:A $3K headlight? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2004-04-19 04:27 · Score: 1

Yeah, that headlight comment is either way off (Maybe $300) or they are quoting a complete rip of dealer. Such lights usually go for about $60 a pair, though I could see maybe as high as $100 if you bought them yourself.

No, $3k is correct. That's why New Jersey is suing Nissan - they think that a $3k headlight should be a bit harder to steal.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:A $3K headlight? by Deluge · 2004-04-19 04:27 · Score: 1

"Why would anyone want a $3K headlight, or a car that required them? Isn't there a limit to the candlepower a headlight can legally have when driving in a city? Wouldn't any old headlight be good enough for most purposes?"

Absolutely. Case in point - my neighbor bought a BMW X5 a few years ago. It's got the HID headlights, so the light illuminating the ground immediately forward of the vehicle is pretty and white. Inexplicably, however, this wonderful bright illumination stops just when you actually need it - the high-beams are halogen only.

What, aside from trying to look cool and annoying other drivers with the glare, is the point of brightly illuminating lit city streets while not having any advantage over a $12000 Hyundai when you hit the country roads?
Re:A $3K headlight? by hb253 · 2004-04-19 05:44 · Score: 1

The expensive Xenon/arc discharge lamps provide superior lighting at night - much better than any halogen bulb. However, the there is the price. SO the buyer needs to weigh improved safety vs. cost.

--
Self awareness - try it!
Re:A $3K headlight? by babyrat · 2004-04-19 05:51 · Score: 1

This wastefulness makes me sick.

Why is this wasteful? If someone can afford it then why shouldn't they buy it if they so choose? Considering that they will be better able to see/be seen (and if - ok big if - properly aimed they will not be blinding anyone). Furthermore they are more efficient and use less energy. And once economies of scale happen the price will go down.

Ir reminds me of the ceramic brakes on 911's when they first cam out - it was a $12000 option sometime in the mid 90's - now you can buy ceramic pads for your Honda Civic for under $100 a pair.
Re:A $3K headlight? by Malc · 2004-04-19 05:52 · Score: 1

You obviously haven't driven with them. At very least I would like to see the DoT upgrade their lighting specs to make the European E-spec lighting pattern standard 'coz the DoT-spec lighting pattern is utter shit and quite pathetic. Most N. Americans have never been overseas nor driven a car with decent lighting and so don't know what they're missing. I don't care whether they're HIDs or not, just give me proper headlights!
Re:A $3K headlight? by Tony+Hammitt · 2004-04-19 06:28 · Score: 1

I've seen the kind of people who buy ridiculously expensive things like this, and they're all morons.

I sure as hell hope you're right and these are just the one-off experimental test marketing prices. Otherwise we'll have to have even more police officers investigating light bulb thieves instead of working on serious crimes. They already have to have armed escorts for cigarette trucks because a semi trailer is worth $10M, can you imagine a cargo container of these headlights? They're worth more than their weight in platinum, which is insane.

Most of the yuppie assholes that drive these big-waste-of-money monstrosities never drive them outside of a well-lit city at night, so wtf good is the 20% better illumination from the headlights? It certainly isn't going to turn them into better drivers.

My question is, how do people who have these difficulties with critical reasoning even get jobs where they can afford to waste $100K on a car? Who employs them? A: Other morons who think wasting money proves that you're worthy of admiration.
Re:A $3K headlight? by Deluge · 2004-04-19 06:40 · Score: 1

I'll admit I don't know about the different specs, but I do know that a $80000 SUV doesn't seem to light up the road (yes, I've driven in it at night, and since we live in the boons I got to see the highbeams in action) any better than my $16000 Corolla. (Though the Corolla lights things up better than many other cars...)
Re:A $3K headlight? by Malc · 2004-04-19 10:18 · Score: 1

I drove an SUV (Nissan Pathfinder) once (standard filament headlights). Fullbeam just didn't seem to make a difference. Maybe the driver's position is too far above the light position.

This page might help you understand the difference in the lighting patterns. Even though E-spec lights can legally be far brighter, they should actually produce a lot less glare. The ones in N. America that do cause glare are probably dodgy home-made conversions or upgrades and so misaligned, and with the lack of DOT regulation, missing washer units (they really glare when dirty) and self-levelling (they should adjust downwards if you load up the back of the car).
Re:A $3K headlight? by JimBobJoe · 2004-04-19 17:56 · Score: 1

Why would anyone want a $3K headlight, or a car that required them? Isn't there a limit to the candlepower a headlight can legally have when driving in a city?

The headlight itself is not $3. The Xenon gas requires a tremendous charge to light up (I think I've read in the order of several hundred thousands of volts.) It's the eletrical ballast for the lamps that are so expensive.

Candlepower is likely the same, but since the light comes from another part of the spectrum, it's a lot easier to ess, and it illuminates better. Go drive one at night and the difference is worth it.

On a side note, they may be $3k to replace, but they are optional on most cars at about $500.

Reliability versus feature creep by beacher · 2004-04-19 04:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

As an owner of a VW Beetle (wife's), I thought I'd be happy to own something that should have been as easy (and cheap) to fix as my 1983 Rabbit. Recently, it ran rough, hard to keep idle, stalled under load. After an oxygen sensor ($180), a mass air flow sensor ($60), a new set of spark plug wies ($120), she was running as good as it gets. These are just *part* prices - No labor. It's insane. This is a damn 4 cylinder, most of em should pass emissions pretty easily. Squeezing the last drop of horsepower out of an engine had made it nothing but costly and unreliable when something breaks. I used to pull and rebore/rebuild engines back in the day, got a BsCsci, and even I'm hesitant/reluctant/afraid to touch anything on the emissions/electrical/ecm system. WTF?

What really gets me going is that I took it to VW to get the ECm re-flashed because emissions is coming up for me. Told em to do warranty repair/recall work only. They did it, but they "checked the car" because it's been a while since it's been to the VW dealerships. They found that the coolant and brake line fluid's PH balance was off (I can't even make this up!) They were more than happy to perform the fluid flush ($220).

HEY! While you're at it check my headlight fluid and don't skimp on the halogen fluid!

Goddamn I hate these new cars.
-B

Re:Oxymoron? by Abalamahalamatandra · 2004-04-19 04:13 · Score: 1

Anybody know anything about mid-to-early-80s Volkswagen vans and magnesium? I remember when I was a kid and one caught fire down the street, and something on it (underneath in the middle, as I recall) burned so damned white-hot I couldn't even look at it.

The firefighters who responded sat there dousing it with water for like an hour. It was wild.

I don't think magnesium in vehicles is such a hot idea. Or maybe it is!

The problem is dealer part prices by shoppa · 2004-04-19 04:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

These cars are not economic to repair... true, only if you are buying parts from the dealer.

Most of these cars get "written off", bought by salvage specialists, and then rebuilt using parts from other wrecked cars (which are also "too expensive" to repair). It makes perfect economic sense to do so. But the way the laws and insurance companies work, it's almost impossible for the original owner to do this. It pretty much has to be done through a salvage title.

The rise in parts prices isn't limited to brand new cars... I've seen some normal maintenance items (belts, filters, etc.) on my 1992 car rise by a factor of three in the past few years (and yes, the new models use those same parts!)

transmission by austad · 2004-04-19 04:13 · Score: 1

My S4 is on its fourth transmission. Thankfully the previous 3 were covered by warranty because they cost $6800 each. That's $20400 worth of transmissions. Ouch.

FYI, they were all broken by the previous owner, who was a bit hard on them I think. :)

--
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum

Re:transmission by Deluge · 2004-04-19 04:33 · Score: 1

"FYI, they were all broken by the previous owner, who was a bit hard on them I think. :)"

Wouldn't you also think, though, that an automaker that gleefully overprices the hell out of its cars in North America all the while moaning about German engineering and what a high performance vehicle you're forking over way too much money for, would be capable of building a transmission able to withstand the stresses of hard driving in a supposed sports car being driven like *gasp* a sports car?
Re:transmission by fishbowl · 2004-04-19 05:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Depends on what you mean by "sports car".

Gear boxes and engines are spent routinely at the quarter mile strip. Every suspension part that can break, will break on a rally course.

A true sports car should allow you to operate it to the breaking point, it should not limit your envelope for your safety or to keep you from breaking something. It should let you outspeed your brakes, it should let you oversteer, and it should let you put moure torque into the drivetrain than it can handle.

That comes with the understanding that if you break it by doing so, it's your fault, of course.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Re:Oxymoron? by Rostin · 2004-04-19 04:13 · Score: 1

I think strength in this case refers to how much stress or strain can be put on the part before it deforms. This is not related to what happens when it does deform, which has to do with how brittle the part is.

Not Worried by atheos · 2004-04-19 04:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Since the advent of computers & other high tech components in automobiles, people have long been predicting the same thing.
Honestly, how many 1970 automobiles do pass on your way to work?

Consumers buy new cars every few years regardless of the maintenance costs on their trade in cars, and people will never stop crashing their cars & filling salvage yards with plenty of recyclable parts.
In a sense, cars have been "disposable" for many years.
Leased vehicles are "disposed" from one class of consumers, down to another class and so on.

This reminds me of a book I read about garbology (can't remember the title), where scientist were baffled about the low quantity of washers & dryers found in dumps. They discovered that broken appliances were exported to central and south America to be rebuilt, and that many of the appliances used there were decades old!

Re:Not Worried by zx75 · 2004-04-19 05:31 · Score: 1

You must live in the United States. The car market here in Canada is quite different, and the manufacturer's have started to understand that. Most of us up here drive our cars into the ground. Most new fancy cars won't be looking so great after a winter or two on salted and sanded streets. True that there aren't too many 70s cars around anymore, because they've all rusted away. But mid 80s up until early 90s cars FAR outnumber newer cars on the roads, because they still run and haven't died yet.

--
This is not a sig.
Re:Not Worried by cherokee158 · 2004-04-19 06:07 · Score: 1

This is true. In fact, it is true of electronics, too. I once watched a documentary about a bunch of guys who bought two retired schoolbuses, loaded them up with old junk radios, TV's, computers, etc and drove them down to Central/South America (an adventure in itself) and then sold it all...including the buses. They then bought plane tickets, flew back top the States, and started bus shopping again.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.
Re:Not Worried by StrongAxe · 2004-04-19 10:12 · Score: 1

Since the advent of computers & other high tech components in automobiles, people have long been predicting the same thing. Honestly, how many 1970 automobiles do pass on your way to work?

It depends on where you live. The last time I was in the Los Angeles area, I saw quite a few cars that were in the 20-30 year old range. Of course, cars there aren't generally affected by rust.

This reminds me of a book I read about garbology (can't remember the title), where scientist were baffled about the low quantity of washers & dryers found in dumps. They discovered that broken appliances were exported to central and south America to be rebuilt, and that many of the appliances used there were decades old!

I was in Mexico City in 1991; the vast majority of vehicles (and all taxis) I saw on the road were Volkswagen beetles (a model not made in the US for decades), and a large number of them looked like they had been in use for a very long time.

When you don't thave lots of money to throw around on always buying new equipment, you develop the skill set necessary to make do with older and obsolete models.

Re:Oxymoron? by mcmonkey · 2004-04-19 04:14 · Score: 2, Informative

If the radiator mount is strong, how can it be brittle at the same time?

Strong will tell you what it takes for magnesium to bend--a lot. Brittle will tell you what magnesium will do when it bends--it breaks.

Think of the old super ball in liquid nitrogen trick. It doesn't take much to deform a super ball at room temp. But it isn't brittle and won't break. Freeze a super ball and it gains strength--you probably won't be able to deform it with your hands. But throw it down or hit it with a hammer and it will shatter. It becomes brittle.

Re:From sys admin... by confused+one · 2004-04-19 04:14 · Score: 1

I've got my socket set (metric and Imperial) and my torque wrench, I am so ready!

Yeah, now all you need is another $10k in tools, which YOU have to buy.

new cars are also lower maintenance by yppiz · 2004-04-19 04:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Some of the complexity of new cars also makes them much lower maintenance. For example, the engine computer on most cars replaces a system that required serious and frequent maintenance.

This trend is also driving mechanics out of business. It used to be that a car would generate serious $$$ in terms of annual scheduled maintenance.

So consider the plight of independent mechanics - not only does it now require the equivalent of a college degree's education to understand most cars, but it's also less rewarding because there are fewer opportunities for maintenance.

This is a double-hit.

--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

Re:new cars are also lower maintenance by langeland · 2004-04-19 04:51 · Score: 1

This is so untrue! When new cars are sent on the market today, they are usually required a maintinace check every so often. If you, as an owner of the car, don't meet those demands, you can forget about reselling your car for a reasonable price. Today cars have a sort of jounal, almost like humans. If I were to buy a 2001 Mercedes I'd demand that the car had been properly checked in an authorized repairshop/dealer when the factory required it. If it had been stuffed with unauthorized parts I wouldn't buy it. I believe that, due to these policies from the car companies, the maintinance expences has increased in the recent years.

Re:Like silly putty by tomhudson · 2004-04-19 04:14 · Score: 1

Take Silly Putty and slowly pull on it - it stretches without breaking.

Pull on it quickly, it breaks into 2

Hit it with a hammer, it shatters.

$3000 Xenon Headlights? by the+eric+conspiracy · 2004-04-19 04:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

These guys are on crack. Auto dealers get a good deal of their profits from repairs. They aren't about to let the carmakers close off this business.

As far as the headlight cost, a full conversion kit including ballasts, headlights and wiring harness typically costs $500. The actual lights are about $50 ea. Not $3000.

Re:$3000 Xenon Headlights? by Suidae · 2004-04-19 07:04 · Score: 1

Bah, I just run my $15 halogens on 20VDC. Sure, they explode occasionally, but it only takes 2 minutes to swap in a new one.

Lateral Thinking by serutan · 2004-04-19 04:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

This could be a good sign for the prospect of robotic cars. I expect that when self-driving cars hit the streets in a few years there will be a decrease in car buying. For one thing they'll be expensive. For another, why let the car sit in the parking lot after it drives you to work, when it can go back home and ferry other family members around. Net result: more one-car families.

Next step is why let the car sit in the home garage at all? Instead of buying the car just subscribe to a taxi service -- a fleet of robotic cars runs around picking up riders continuously.

The fact that cars in general are getting too expensive to maintain could give an encentive for this pattern. I think in 30 years very few people will actually own their own cars. My house will be have a lot more space when I don't need a garage!

Re:Oxymoron? by TykeClone · 2004-04-19 04:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm a volunteer firefighter and we did get a warning about the Ford pickups and their magnesium parts. Probably will never be a problem, but it would really suck to have a fire that we really need to put out that we couldn't dowse with water.

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.

welding ally by MikeHunt69 · 2004-04-19 04:16 · Score: 1

Welding ally takes experience (and a TIG welder). Any monkey can get a MIG and weld body panels together, grind them down, fill with bodyfiller and get someone to spray it.

Ally is more difficult because it melts at a lower temp than mild steel so if you use the usual methods it will just blow a hole in the ally. It can also make the weld more brittle if done incorrectly. However, it can still be done - it just takes practice.

Re:Oxymoron? by aero6dof · 2004-04-19 04:16 · Score: 1

If the radiator mount is strong, how can it be brittle at the same time?

Calling a material brittle describes how it fails not when it fails. If you exceed the strength of a part made of a brittle material it likely snaps. If you exceed the strength of a part made of a ductile material it likely bends. The level of force a part made of brittle materials can tolerate may be higher than the equivalent part made of ductile material. I'm drastically simplifying this, so if you're interested in more depth, look up metallurgy or materials engineering.

Mars Rover under the hood by Tablizer · 2004-04-19 04:16 · Score: 1

I've actually been thinking that automotive electronics diagnostics & repair could be a good field to get into - it can't be outsourced and the demand is there.

I am not so sure about that. Remote-controlled Mars-probe like robots will probably be readily available pretty soon. Communications bandwidth is the primary bottleneck, and it falls in price in a Moores-law-like pattern. Plus, such remote-bots can repair each other, bringing down the cost of them. But, that is another 10 or so years away. Hopefully we can retire by then.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Those blinders cost $3000!?!? by straponego · 2004-04-19 04:16 · Score: 1

So you're telling me that the blue, color shifting, overly bright headlights apparently designed with the specific purpose of blinding oncoming drivers and ruining night vision... cost $3k to replace.

Interesting.

Re:Those blinders cost $3000!?!? by Tattva · 2004-04-19 05:18 · Score: 1

Hi,
I got a new Prius another customer had configured but failed to close on late last year, and it was configured with HID lights. At the time I thought the same as you about HID, but the dealer says they only start out that really annoying color and quickly warm up to a white. Is that true? I haven't had an opportunity to compare my lights to someone else's after they had warmed up.

--
personal attacks hurt, especially when deserved
Re:Those blinders cost $3000!?!? by Buran · 2004-04-19 11:08 · Score: 1

They will shift in color gradually over about 1-2 minutes and then will stabilize until they are shut off. However, they will still appear whiter/bluish compared to halogen lights because the temperature of the arc created by the bulbs is higher than that of the burning filament in a conventional halogen bulb. This is just basic physics.

Turn on the lights (or have someone else do it) and then stand in front of the car. You'll notice the shift if you specifically look for it.

Not all HIDs have the same color temperature, however.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle

The answer to outsourcing? by GileadGreene · 2004-04-19 04:16 · Score: 1

Everyone keeps asking "what are we supposed to do when all the jobs are outsourced to India?" Well, here's the answer! Car maintenance has become a high-tech industry. There's a labor shortage. Lots of technically savvy people are out of work. Sounds like a perfect fit to me. And this is something that simply won't be cost effective to outsource (at least until cheap teleportation becomes available).

I'm assuming that all those people whining about outsourcing are now going to go out and retrain as car techs, right? Because the only reason you were whining wasn't your lack of desire to "adapt to new ways of doing business" (as we keep telling the RIAA to do), but the lack of an opportunity to do so. Right?

Bicycles by benzeen · 2004-04-19 04:17 · Score: 1

Abolish cars altogether.

Between bicycles and public transportation, we don't even need cars for personal use.

Maybe this could be made possible in large cities and metropolises?

The sad thing is that in places like China, where the bicycle has been the best form of transportation for decades, the increase in income is leading to more pollution, more congestion, more traffic accidents and incidents, etc.

capitalism isn't as great as we are convinced it is.

Re:Oxymoron? by MartinG · 2004-04-19 04:17 · Score: 1

cast iron is strong but brittle.

brittle means it will snap rather than bend when enough force is applied.
strong means that "enough force" is quite a lot.

look here for metal comparisons

--
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu

Re:Oxymoron? by The+Blue+Meanie · 2004-04-19 04:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nope, no oxymoron. Take some materials science classes, they're actually pretty eye-opening. Strong and brittle can exist happily together. Pure iron is another example of a strong but brittle material.
"Strong" implies that the material can take a relatively large amount of stress before it fails/breaks. It has nothing to do with what actually *happens* when it fails.
"Brittle" means that when the material fails, it fails abruptly and completely. The opposite of brittle is malleable (the material bends, or fails slowly instead of snapping abruptly).
Think of the difference between snapping a hard pretzel stick vs. tearing a soft pretzel. The hard pretzel can be quite strong - especially if it's as thick as normal soft pretzel - but when it breaks, it breaks completely and abruptly, and with basically no warning.

Of course this isn't so much of a problem as compared to the special materials handling required to work with magnesium parts. Like they said, the training and equipment needed to handle aluminum body work is expensive. Well, the same goes for magnesium.

--
"I feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." -- Tom Lehrer

Re:I need those headlights by Mycroft_VIII · 2004-04-19 04:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

No kidding, how are these allowed when in many jurisdictions you can get a ticket if you have your high-beams on when there is on coming traffic.
I BRIEFLY flash my highbeams at anyone who's headlights blind me because of brightness to notify them they need to dim thier lights. But over the last couple of years I've had more and more people respond by turning on thier brights because they had these lights and it only apeared they were running with thier high beams on. I go from blinded to blinded and in pain!
I don't care how much better you can see the road, it doese no good if you get hit head on by some poor schmuck you just blinded.

Mycroft
(ps all you idiots who jack your truck up and don't recalibrate the beam angle on your headlights so as not to blind oncoming traffic should be forced to drive a small 3-4cylinder 2door for a month, at night!)

--
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea

The little snots by JohnnyGTO · 2004-04-19 04:18 · Score: 1

in Arcata point at my old Suburban and tell me I'm soooooooooooo insensitive to mother earth and abuse her resources. I see it as recycling, I can keep the thing running forever on rebuilt parts. Just imagine the cost of resources to mine, refine, forge and build a new one? Not to mention throwing it out !!!

--
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!

Re:Oxymoron? by a1cypher · 2004-04-19 04:18 · Score: 1

Well, I think that using magnesium on car parts is genious. But maybe not for any part that requires significant strength.

The magnesium, if grounded properly, will act as a rust-magnet (if you will) because it has a lower oxydizing potential than the metal used in the cars. So... if it is properly connected to the car, it *should* rust before the car does. However, once it rusts/weakens/deteriorates, the car will start to rust (and your magnesium part will be gone).

Maybe Ford was thinking of this when they made the parts out of magnesium? Or maybe they were just stupid. Another small flaw with using magnesium car parts however is that the stuff is rediciously flammable. Just hope that your F150 never has an engine fire or that radiator mount will be burning as bright as a flare.

Would you buy a car... by stoolpigeon · 2004-04-19 04:18 · Score: 1

with the hood welded shut?

I guess they need to change that to:Have you bought a car with the hood welded shut?

I know this- I can do a lot of work myself on my '69 Chevy - but it sucks to drive compared to a new car- and the only thing safe about it is that it is huge and made of medal. Just lap belts- no airbags - drum brakes all around. I could go on. There are no good old days for cars. If it is safer- easier to drive and more fuel efficient- I'll pay somebody to fix it.

--
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?

Computerized cars? by wvitXpert · 2004-04-19 04:19 · Score: 1

"The best people to find are those who have worked in the IT [information technology] industry." The day they start selling cars running Microsoft Windows is the day I start walking to work.

Brakes by phorm · 2004-04-19 04:19 · Score: 1

Right now I've got my main ride partially dissassembled. The tires are off, the front brakes are apart, and I have to finish next weekend after I grab a few parts that surprised me.

This is the first time I've done disc brakes solo, and probably the last. My last car wasn't that hard to do the front brakes... this car is a bit newer, and it seems that they purposely do things in as inconvenient a manner as possible (rotor bolts on the inside requiring the steering knuckle etc to be removed).

I'm lucky though, this car doesn't have ABS. Most newer cars do, which means that it will be much harder for me to service the brakes. In fact, it seems odd to me that the progression of electronics that I can *add* to my car is comparable to the electronics that I can't *service* on my car. My old tapedeck was replaced by a CD player, then an MP3 CD deck, and finally I am working on outfitting it with a nice mini-ITX PC to handle DVD-audio playback, wireless syncing, etc. It seems very odd to me that while I can easily add all these rather "complex" things to my car, a decade from now I probably won't be able to change my own oil due to the triple-sensor-electronic-bypass oil filter...

Re:Brakes by Voytek · 2004-04-19 04:54 · Score: 1

What exactly would be more difficult if you had ABS?
Re:Brakes by LouCifer · 2004-04-19 04:55 · Score: 1

Dude, ABS disc brakes aren't any more difficult to service than regular ol' disc brakes.

I look forward to my next vehicle purchase: Its going to have four wheel disc.

Disc is a LOT easier to service than drums.

--
Religion is for people afraid of going to hell.
Re:Brakes by phorm · 2004-04-19 06:03 · Score: 1

Replacing the ABS sensors etc. I haven't done it since I don't have ABS... but I've heard that it can be annoying (depending on the vehicle) and of course it's another expense.
Re:Brakes by Voytek · 2004-04-19 06:10 · Score: 1

Fair enough, but usually one wouldn't fit that in with a routine "service" of the brakes. It's not something you have to service, but it is something you might have to fix...

Well Slashdot - ites how does it feel... by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · 2004-04-19 04:19 · Score: 1

to be thrust down the food chain.

Now, most of you are mere Blue Collar Grease Monkeys.

a Little joke, don't get your scrips in a bunch.

This is extremely bad for consumers by geek · 2004-04-19 04:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Cars are major investments, especially in the USA where finding a reasonably desirable one will run you 20k easy. My point here is, this means insurance companies will be totalling more cars after accidents rather than repairing them. The rule of thumb is, if the repairs cost more than the car blue books as, they total it. Cars depreciate the second you drive them off the lot but repairing them has gotten more and more expensive. This will lead to much higher insurance premiums for EVERYONE.

This is only going to become more of a problem as more hybrids are released. Your average mechanic is what he is because he grew up working on cars with his dad/friends etc.. It's very much a lifestyle worn as a badge of honor by the blue collar salt of the earth crowd. They no more want to use a computer than many of us want to get our hands dirty under the hood of our cars.

The only saving grace here is that repairs seem to be less frequent on newer automobiles. I have less than 30k miles on my 2000 Ford F250 and have yet to need any under the hood work.

Bring back 60's tech by mustangsal66 · 2004-04-19 04:19 · Score: 1

14 bolts and 5 hoses and my '66 mustang's engine comes out.

I need 12 tools to do the majority of any work I need to do, all of which are available at sears, and for a total cost of under $100.

No need for a multi-thousand dollar device to tell me my air filter needs changing.

--
Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
Sig changed for readability by G.W.

Re:Bring back 60's tech by BCW2 · 2004-04-19 04:32 · Score: 1

Wow, go back to when we had mechanic instead of technicians? Sign me up.

A tchnician swaps old parts for new ones(we can train chimps for this). A mechanic fixes it when no parts are available and maybe not the right tools.

I was a mechanic for 33 years!

--
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Re:Bring back 60's tech by bhima · 2004-04-19 04:42 · Score: 1

I was just reading how Shelby has bought up all the engineless '65 fastbacks they could find and is now producing "Shelby Continuation Cars". A GT350SR will only set you back 100K USD.

--
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Re:Oxymoron? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2004-04-19 04:20 · Score: 1

it would really suck to have a fire that we really need to put out that we couldn't dowse with water.

C'mon, it's a pickup truck - hit the front end with a fire extinguisher.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"

I'm sick and tired of by Etienne+Steward · 2004-04-19 04:20 · Score: 1

hearing about a supposed shortage of skilled labor in this country. That is such bulls---. Heaven forbid that a business (or the government) would actually have to INVEST in its people to keep them competative. (Or that the educational institutions would have to LOWER their TUITION charges to get more people in.) How hard it is to be a business owner these days with all of these profits and stupid people.

Re:I thought disposable cars were already out ther by Ralph+Wiggam · 2004-04-19 04:21 · Score: 1

Some of the cars made in Soviet Russia made the Pinto look like a Ferrari.

-B

Re:Oxymoron? by dcsmith · 2004-04-19 04:21 · Score: 1

If the radiator mount is strong, how can it be brittle at the same time?

OK, read this. The Oak and the Reed

Same thing applies in other areas, e.g. tall buildings sway slightly in strong winds or mild earthquakes.

--
This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.

Re:From sys admin... by nharmon · 2004-04-19 04:21 · Score: 1

grease monkey?

I don't care for that term.

Ferrous vs Non Ferrous by nuggz · 2004-04-19 04:22 · Score: 1

Plain carbon steel is generally easy to deal with.
Alloy steels are trickier, but generally not that different as they are still ferrous metals. I think this is what the poster is refering to.

Non ferrous metals can be totally different, you can't just weld aluminum, Titanium or Tungsten, and that is the point of the article.
These materials require very different procedures.

Cheap, Interchangable, Commodity parts... by Anomylous+Howard · 2004-04-19 04:22 · Score: 1

If cars were more like computers (Yeah, we all know that old joke), air bags would be pretty much interchangable across manufacturers, as would be headlights, and transmissions. Just we can spec out a computer with our choice of processor, video card, and speakers, we should be able to do the same with cars. Tires already work that way, why can't more auto parts??

Maybe we can outsource car repair to India by cparisi · 2004-04-19 04:23 · Score: 1

It may be cheaper to ship the car to India and back...

Re:Oxymoron? by mustangsal66 · 2004-04-19 04:23 · Score: 1

Like concrete. It's great for holding things up (compression), but not for any lateral movment. Magnesium isn't that fragile, but you get the idea.

Burning magnesium is hot as hell... as water only makes it worse.

--
Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
Sig changed for readability by G.W.

Hmm... by CFBMoo1 · 2004-04-19 04:23 · Score: 1

My first car was a late model '76 Chevy Malabu Classic (LEAD SLED), puke green, rusted dent in the right rear from a truck smacking it at 40mph. I got that car for $900 of news paper delivery money and it lasted me from about 1987/88 to about 2003 with heavy milage for a college student traveling from Lancaster PA to Harrisburg PA each day along with work and other things.

What finally killed it was inspection.. Seems that two weeks before we had a huge rainstorm that flooded everywhere and I was driving friends home. I was traveling flooded back roads and the car went in to water that was high enough to seep in through the floor. Bottomed it out like twice, ah it was great.. Got them home and drove myself home.

Anyhow the inspection revealed that I broke the rear axel and smashed the transmition housing. Yet it still drove like nothing was wrong. Atleast to me anyway. :) God forbid I ever do anything like that with my current 2003 Saturn Ion. It'd be totaled probebly on the first hill I would hit or short out from high water.

Granted the car I have now is nice compared to the old one, but I know what I would a)feel safer in and b)know which was less complicated to fix on my own if I had to.

--
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~

not just cars... by ecalkin · 2004-04-19 04:23 · Score: 1

i've seen this with computers owned by small companies and individuals. it gets a software problems that *could* be fixed, but it would take time ($) to diagnose. or it could be reinstalled, along with their software (again, $). i would say that i've seen 4 people just buy new computers rather than fix (somewhat) simple software problems.

not good.

eric

Re:not just cars... by jhoffoss · 2004-04-19 04:40 · Score: 1

Working in a larger company's helpdesk, I often was requested/required to reimage rather than repair. But reimaging took about forty minutes, start to finish, saving and restoring all of a user's documents. There were some problems that required repair though, and these could take two hours or more, just trying to get Novell's client to behave properly with Win98 (both troublesome products, granted.) But when I could reimage, it saved a ton of time, and time is money.

--
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.

Re:From sys admin... by AndroidCat · 2004-04-19 04:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

I hate to think on what I've spent on software/hardware tools over the years. At least mechanics' tools don't suffer from bit-rot. (That Megamax C for the Atari ST, what was I thinking?)

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

Re:Oxymoron? by Mycroft_VIII · 2004-04-19 04:25 · Score: 1

Easily. Take a 2" glass rod for example, now pull on both ends, pretty strong huh. try pushing in on both ends, or twisting it. now shock it suddenly, say by whacking it on the side.
Compare this to twine. you can pretty much slap twine silly swing it as hard as you want against the wall and nothing much happens, now try supporting as much wieght as the 2" glass rod can handle.

Mycroft

--
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea

simple solution by bl8n8r · 2004-04-19 04:27 · Score: 1

Take your car to India and have it serviced there. I hear they work cheap.

--
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org

Re:Oxymoron? by timmi · 2004-04-19 04:27 · Score: 1

Or to put it another way, Steel Rebar has high tensile strength (resistant to stretching) concrete has high compressive strength, (not easily compressed) ergo, bridges are built out of steel reinforced concrete.

forgot the quote I was responding to. by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · 2004-04-19 04:28 · Score: 1

The best people to find are those who have worked in the IT [information technology] industry

Bitch bitch by Natedog · 2004-04-19 04:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

"We're moving closer and closer to the disposable car," says Dan Bailey, an executive vice president at Carstar, the largest auto-body repair franchise in the United States.

well duh! of course the auto repair industry is unhappy about this. I'm sure they aren't happy about any loss of business, whether it be to dealers or just better quality cars that don't need as much maintinence. Good riddance I say. Doesn't anyone remember when you could only expect 100-150k miles out of a car? How about severe body rust after only a few years (I live near the coast). How about all the independant repair shops that just rip people off (seems to have gotten better since the 80s).

Also, so airbags are expensive? What's their point? Should we do away with them? I suppose it would be better if the teen didn't walk away from the accident -- yep, that would've been worth 30K. This reminds me of people that buy used or crappy 3rd world climbing equipment to save a few bucks.

No thank you. I'll take my *advanced* car that requires a specially trained tech to work on...even if it is more expensive, at least it'll be fixed correctly. The tech can at least run the diagnostics checks and has training on common problems, etc. The independent shops just take wild guesses and start replacing things.

--
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0

Re:Bitch bitch by shiftless · 2004-04-19 15:00 · Score: 1

I'll take my *advanced* car that requires a specially trained tech to work on...even if it is more expensive, at least it'll be fixed correctly. The tech can at least run the diagnostics checks and has training on common problems, etc. The independent shops just take wild guesses and start replacing things.

WTF? care to back up those statements? First of all, those "specially trained techs" are often knuckle-dragging morons picked up off the street and sent through a couple weeks of school, then turned loose. A lot of them really have no clue what the hell they're doing, "factory trained" or not.

Second, many independent techs are guys who have been working on cars their entire lives and are really good at diagnosing engine problems. I PROMISE you they (the vast majority of them) do not just take "wild guesses" and "start replacing things".

Westsiiiiiide Automotive by crazyhorse44 · 2004-04-19 04:28 · Score: 1

If specialist technicians need advanced reading, problem-solving, and basic electronics skills.... how come the technicians at my Acura dealership all look like they just got out of prison?

--
. SLASHDOT: Home of the vicious nerd.

Re:Westsiiiiiide Automotive by satterth · 2004-04-19 09:29 · Score: 1

how come the technicians at my Acura dealership all look like they just got out of prison?
Its simple really. All those guys went to prison for learning how to strip cars quickly (chop chop). Now that they are out they are quick and cheap labor.

--
Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.

MX-5 by Jeffrey+Baker · 2004-04-19 04:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well I hate to point out the obvious, but the buyer has a lot of choice among cars. You could buy a BMW M3 with Xenon headlamps, electronically-controlled valve timing, and a computer that works the clutch for you, and it just might be difficult to repair the damn thing. Or you could buy a Miata (MX-5 outside the USA) which is the sort of car the owner can maintain. There's hardly anything to break in a Miata, it gets good gas mileage, it pollutes gently, and it will whip the M3 on an autocross track.

So if you bought the M3 don't go blaming BMW just because you forgot to figure in the cost of maintenance.

Re:MX-5 by Skipio · 2004-04-19 05:22 · Score: 1

There's hardly anything to break in a Miata, it gets good gas mileage, it pollutes gently, and it will whip the M3 on an autocross track.

You must be joking. A BMW M3 can go from 0 to 60 miles per hour in 5.2 seconds! It will beat the hell out of a Miata.
Re:MX-5 by b0s0z0ku · 2004-04-19 07:59 · Score: 1

You must be joking. A BMW M3 can go from 0 to 60 miles per hour in 5.2 seconds! It will beat the hell out of a Miata.
Certainly. In a straight line. However, the previous poster wasn't talking about drag racing; he was talking about autocross, which is about driving the car quickly around a course with obstacles and tight turns. In that situation, the Miata with its double wishbone suspension all around (vs struts in the BMW), its lower center of gravity, and it's lighter weight, will surely win. Heck, Miatas can even be pretty fast if you add a turbo or replace the engine with an aluminum V-8 (which weighs about the same amount as the stock iron engine).
Besides, having fun driving a car has very little to do with raw power, and more to do with handling, and an overall feeling of tightness or "connectedness" to the road. To elaborate, the most fun car that I had was a FIAT Spider 2000 with 85hp. The other car that I drove that was really great to drive was my mom's old BMW 528e with 120hp. By contrast, I drove a Chevy Caprice with ~250hp for a while, and it was a numb ride and no fun at all.
As I've said before, if you want raw acceleration and fun, pick yourself up a motorcycle. A 500cc Kawasaki Ninja can be had for around $1500 used and will embarass 99% of the cars out there today.
-b0s0z0ku (who just got offered a Honda CB400 for $250 and can't help himself :)

Are you telling me... by Trolling4Dollars · 2004-04-19 04:31 · Score: 1

xenon high-intensity-discharge headlights: $3,000 each

...that people are spending $3000 for hi-tech hi-beams? Have people really become THAT stupid? My god it's worse than I thought.

--
Un-news

Re:Are you telling me... by doppleganger871 · 2004-04-19 04:42 · Score: 1

Well, actually, the HID bulbs are used generally in low-beams. And, no, they really don't cost that much, some writer didn't do proper research... (read: google search: HID Kits)

Anyhoo, HID lights are fantastic, actually. Kinda like using an arc welder to light up the room.

But anyhoo.

--
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The Speed of light.... by ColdWetDog · 2004-04-19 04:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

While I agree with some of the rants, there are enough logical holes in the article to make me wonder about how big the problem is.

"Now Nissan and other automakers have started using taillights with multiple LEDs rather than a single inexpensive light bulb. The LEDs light faster in a panic stop to give drivers following more warning, but they're also more expensive to replace."

Come on, the LEDs faster than incandescents? Perhaps the quantum state required to fire off a LED is a bit faster than the time needed to heat those electrons off the tungsten wire, but I would be awfully suprised if that turns out to help avoiding accidents.

Part of the problem has nothing to do with the costs of the technology used to repair the damage. It's the cost to keep skilled employees fed, watered and insured. So whether they're pounding out steel or aluminum, it costs money.

And who these days, fixes electronics parts. You replace the little buggers. Anybody out there doing mobo parts replacement? (this being /., I'm sure there are, but it's not a Usual Thing).

And I love OBD (On Board Diagnostics). You never have to think! Just Replace(TM).

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:The Speed of light.... by Carnivore · 2004-04-19 04:58 · Score: 1

Come on, the LEDs faster than incandescents? Perhaps the quantum state required to fire off a LED is a bit faster than the time needed to heat those electrons off the tungsten wire, but I would be awfully suprised if that turns out to help avoiding accidents.

I think it's more useful than you realise. Watch the next time you're following a car with the taillight in the spoiler. Frequently, the light in the spoiler has LEDs, and the other taillights are incandescant. You can really tell the difference in illumination time between the LEDs and the incandescants.

Even if it's only a couple of milliseconds difference, it could change the severity of a collsion, or avoid one entirely.
Re:The Speed of light.... by BattleTroll · 2004-04-19 05:29 · Score: 1

The speed differential between incandescents and LEDs has been measured to between 0.2 and 0.5 a second. Doesn't sound like much until you consider that 1/2 a second at 75MPH is around 100 feet. That's a considerable distance, enough to, say, avoid an accident? They cost more but are proven to be faster. They also have a significantly longer half life so you're replacing them less often.

I think the added safty and longer shelf life more than make up for the initial higher cost.

Re:FOSS autos by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 04:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

Why can't I just download an OSS ROM and flash it myself?

Why can't you just disconnect the battery?

Re:Oxymoron? by dcsmith · 2004-04-19 04:32 · Score: 1

OK, OK. If The Oak and the Reed was too touchy-feely, try this explanation of strength/hardness, deformation and breaking-points.

--
This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.

Daytime Running Lights by menscher · 2004-04-19 04:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just an example... my sister bought a car that came with daytime running lights (DRL). Well, she moved to a location where they are illegal. Too bad the mechanics can't figure out how to disable them....

Re:Daytime Running Lights by BCW2 · 2004-04-19 04:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Another unforseen problem with the moron protection lights, beside that every one now ignores them.

Keep stupid people from the consequenses of their actions and all you do is dilute the gene pool.

--
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Re:Daytime Running Lights by hopemafia · 2004-04-19 05:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Well, she moved to a location where they are illegal."

I find this hard to believe.... Is turning on your regular headlights during the day also illegal there? I drive with my lights on 24/7. IMHO daytime running lights are one of the simplest and most effective safety options available, and it's a pity they aren't more common. What could possible be bad about your car being easier to see?

--
If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.
Re:Daytime Running Lights by Carnivore · 2004-04-19 05:46 · Score: 1

Can someone tell me why DRLs would be illegal? Is it also illegal to turn on your headlights when it's sunny?
Re:Daytime Running Lights by natron+2.0 · 2004-04-19 06:17 · Score: 1

I find this hard to believe. Most GM vehicles with DRLs could be disabled by a switch that resides in the E-brake assembly...very common on most cars. Very common knowledge as well.

--
[n8.r0n] http://petesweb.spymac.net/
Re:Daytime Running Lights by menscher · 2004-04-19 06:24 · Score: 1

Is turning on your regular headlights during the day also illegal there?
Yes, I believe it is.
Where she lives, they have some rather unusual rules. Like right of way is determined by who flashes their lights first (roads aren't always wide enough for two vehicles to pass). If you have DRLs, that makes right-of-way a bit harder to determine, doesn't it?
Re:Daytime Running Lights by Fortress · 2004-04-19 06:25 · Score: 1

That solution won't work. Most DRLs use either the low beam bulbs or the high beams in series to produce lower intensity. Removing the DRL bulbs will disable most or all of your regular headlights. The exception is some GM/Saturn models, which use the front parking lights as DRLs. Remove those bulbs and you lose your turn signals (This does not matter to many drivers ;-)
Re:Daytime Running Lights by kidgenius · 2004-04-19 07:21 · Score: 1

Where in the hell does your sister live? These just can't be real laws. It almost sounds like a word-of-mouth thing almost. That's nuts.
Re:Daytime Running Lights by Fortress · 2004-04-19 08:10 · Score: 1

I wouldn't say they help when someone is driving innattentively like you describe, but that doesn't mean they are never beneficial.

They make your car more visible, which is always useful. Another driver is more likely (but definitely NOT guaranteed) to see your vehicle and take necessary precautions.

Similarly, a garish paint color can help as well. Volvo had a hideous orange/yellow color available on some models in the 80's that was said to increase visibility, and they had studies to back them up. The option tanked because the color was, well, hideous.

As to DRLs, I don't understand the arguments against them. They cost next to nothing (some additional wiring/switching, nominally shorter bulb life) but increase the safety of the vehicle. When someone argues against DRLs, I usually lump them in with those people who don't wear seatbelts because they'd "rather be thrown from the car." Darwin should take care of them.

WRT DRL legality, here in Canada it is illegal to disable them if your car came so equipped. I haven't heard of anywhere where they are illegal, and I would be curious as to the justification. Anyone?
Re:Daytime Running Lights by Backov · 2004-04-19 08:21 · Score: 1

Does she perhaps live on an island whos name has no vowels?

--
In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
Re:Daytime Running Lights by menscher · 2004-04-19 14:57 · Score: 1

No. Does such an island exist?
Re:Daytime Running Lights by hopemafia · 2004-04-20 02:49 · Score: 1

In most cases, brake lights are significantly brighter than the running lights, and a blinking light like a turn signal will easily catch your attention. I've never had a problem with this with other cars that run with lights on, but occasionally nearly miss seeing a smallish car without any lights on.
I think the benefit of my car being more visible all the time outweighs any deminishing of the noticability of brake lights and turn signals. Afterall, most of the time I'm driving my brake lights and turn signal are not on.
And finally, yes, my third brakelight works....all my lights are checked every oil change at the least.

--
If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.

Car Reliability by silverhalide · 2004-04-19 04:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

It is true that cars are harder to work on nowadays, but back up for a second and recall how unreliable cars used to be. Nowadays, it's not uncommon for a vehicle to go for 100,000 miles with zero major problems. That was not very common 20 years ago.

Just for example, there are lots of things that used to have to be performed on vehicles just to keep them driveable:
-Adjust engine timing. Don't need to do that anymore, computer takes care of it.
-Clean the carburator. Clean the points and distributor. All of that's gone with electronic fuel injection.
-The whole "tune up" procedure is obsolete, as the engine computer keeps fuel mixtures, timings, and environmental conditions in top performance at all times.

Granted, you can still perform the generic maintenance you're used to, such as changing fluids, etc. Cars have become easier to troubleshoot as far as sensors go. Simply hook up the diagnositc tool, and it tells you what sensor is broken or what's acting up. Whip out the shop manual, and it'll tell you exactly where to look.

Modern cars are documented so well, anyone who gets manufacturer support can work on the cars.

The only thing changing is that shadetree mechanics are getting pushed out of the game, but that's inevitable with the level of technology. I don't hear anyone complaining they can't swap out individual memory chips of thier PCs or solder parts onto their motherboards anymore to change options. Hell, you don't even have to set jumpers anymore. It's part of the evolution of the technology.

Also, the article is slightly wrong about Xenon headlamps, the whole system costs $3,000, but the bulbs themselves are only a few hundred bucks. Granted, anyone who owns a vehicle with those headlights is highly unlikely to be doing his own maintenance to begin with.

'Strength' is a measure of energy absorbtion by oneiros27 · 2004-04-19 04:33 · Score: 4, Informative

Strength is a measure of the amount of energy an object can absorb before failure. It is not a measure that's related to deformation.

After you undergo elastic deformation (where the item returns back to its original shape, within tolerance), you reach plastic deformation, where the item will not return to its original shape.

Different materials have different strength ratings for compression (crushing), tension (pulling), sheer opposite forces in a different place), moment (bending), etc.

Ductility the ability of an item to take on a new shape. Although it's different from tensile (tension) strength, ductility is a not a 'strength', it's a measure of maleability.

The above's off the top of my head (civil engineering undergrad 7yrs ago that I never did anything with), but the following seems to explain some of the concepts:

http://www.psrc.usm.edu/macrog/mech.htm

Oh -- and don't forget that strength is typically a function of temperature. [steel's biggest enemy is fire, even though it doesn't burn.... it just becomes really weak, really quickly]

--
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.

Compared to my first car by X-Nc · 2004-04-19 04:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

The first car I actually bought was a brand new, just off the assembly line 1983 VW Bug (made in Mexico and not available in the States). It was a little more "hi-tech" than the ones from the 60's (it had an electronic radio instead of a manual one) but it was a tank. Nothing could stop it; it could take all kinds of abuse (and believe me I put it through all kinds of abuse); didn't care about weather, roads, anything. Hell, when the battery would die ('cause someone would constently forget to turn the headlights off) just put it in second, give it a little push and pop the clutch. Man, that was a car.

--
-- If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.

Parts Prices by SuperBanana · 2004-04-19 04:35 · Score: 1

even the cost of new parts alone (xenon high-intensity-discharge headlights: $3,000 each)

Bullwhoey- they don't cost anything near that, even dealer list price! Talk about ignorant- the writer probably looked up what the "option" cost in the brochure for a new car. That pricing isn't even remotely realistic- anyone who knows anything about new car pricing knows that isn't even what you'd pay if you negotiated(MSRP is for suckers and Saturn customers. Oh wait, that's redundant).

Which brings us to the parts distribution system; there's so many hands involved between you and the company that made the part it's not even funny, and each one wants a nice healthy piece of the pie. Sample: eastern european company(the true original manufacturer) -> Bosch -> Audi -> Worldpac -> Local Parts Co -> Your Mechanic -> You. This can vary wildly based on the part, the marque, etc; some parts are dealer-only, which means you or your mechanic now have to go through the local dealer. If you're lucky, your mechanic has an account with Worldpac and you either get parts slightly cheaper or he makes more money on parts. If you're not lucky, your mechanic has to get the parts from a local parts supplier, who tags on their own chunk of change to the price.

Want a big scary monopoly? Worldpac certainly qualifies with a huge portion of the US market in parts; there's virtually nobody else in the business; there is no equivalent of Sun, Apple, etc; it's just them. They're pretty clever about the web, too- all those two-guys-in-a-garage online parts houses which sell parts to various enthusiast groups are getting their parts from exactly the same place, Worldpac. Worldpac packages them and then gives a return address matching the company you thought you were ordering from. The 2-guys are little more than a marketing front("we're BMW enthusiasts! When we answer line 2. Line 1, we're Honda enthusiasts!") Worldpac quickly figured out that was the best way to sell to guys who wanted to buy parts from fellow enthusiasts (aka not "The Man", ie, Worldpac), and even better still, when Worldpac fucks up(and they often do), guess who takes the phone call? Guess who gets sacrificed faster than a lamb at a pagan festival? Guess who quietly makes a deal with 2-other-guys-in-a-garage to be one of their new (insert car marque here) parts site?

--
Please help metamoderate.

Markups and DMCA real problem by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 04:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

Many local mechs in my town can not even service cars newer than 1994 since the manufacters will not sell them a USB-like computer scanning tool which simply accesses encrypted error codes to help debug problems and reset internal computers. These basic tools are usually free to dealers, but 3rd party mechs either are told it's too properitary to give to them, or (usually when the law requires it) are told it costs $30-130k to buy the device.
The markup on OEM parts is also ridiculous, a $15 hubcap will cost $55 OEM.. and that trend follows custom parts only available from the dealer.

Re:Oxymoron? by deacon · 2004-04-19 04:37 · Score: 2, Informative

low ductile strength

No such thing.

Ductile means that when you exceed the yeild strenght of the material, the material flows plastically to give significant displacement before it fractures. Think clay or silly putty.

Brittle means that when you exceed the yeild strenght, there is very little or no plastic deformantion before failure. Think ice.

Glass and mild steel both have similar yield strengths. Glass failure is brittle, while the steel is ductile.

Yield and Ultimate strength of a material and ductility/brittlness are completely unrelated and independent of each other.

Labor shortage, what labor shortage? by efatapo · 2004-04-19 04:37 · Score: 1

and a labor shortage.

Wait, I thought we were in an employement slump?

Re:Oxymoron? by TykeClone · 2004-04-19 04:38 · Score: 1

I'm thinking more of a farm work truck with a couple hundred gallons of fuel in the back, perhaps parked next to a chemical storage shed.

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.

Yeah! Car manufacturers pulling an Epson? by chadjg · 2004-04-19 04:40 · Score: 1

Says the article:

One body shop that had to remove the lights from a new Audi A8 found they had to be sent back to the manufacturer to be reactivated; otherwise, they wouldn't work.

I don't get it. How does a light bulb need to be activated?

I mean really, straighten out the mount, install the reflector assembly, screw in the bulb, mount lens/cover deal, connect three freaking wires and test! Have car guys started putting chips in the lighting controller that talk to a chip in the light and will refuse to co-operate with non-OEM parts?

It's an obvious answer, but surely they can't be that freaking greedy and stupid. They can't possibly use the "It could damage the printer or give unsatisfactory prints" excuse like the inkjet guys use. This has me freaked out.

--
Why do I have this? I don't smoke.

Re:Yeah! Car manufacturers pulling an Epson? by Martin+Blank · 2004-04-19 04:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Parts that are often stolen are quickly adapted with chips by the manufacturer at the demand of the insurance companies, who will otherwise jack up rates on those vehicles which may result in a subsequent loss of sales. They've been doing this to audio equipment for years, so I wouldn't be surprised to see this happening with the lights or any other high-theft-rate item.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Yeah! Car manufacturers pulling an Epson? by shawb · 2004-04-19 04:53 · Score: 1

The lights cost $3000 apiece. According to the article, there is a lot of theft of headlights. My guess is it's more of a theft deterrent measure than pure greed.

--
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Re:Yeah! Car manufacturers pulling an Epson? by Eisenstein · 2004-04-19 04:59 · Score: 1

Audi A8 parts are one of the most often stolen. To "protect" them they have a kind of DMR-system, which has to be activated.
Re:Yeah! Car manufacturers pulling an Epson? by Shakrai · 2004-04-19 05:26 · Score: 1

The lights cost $3000 apiece. According to the article, there is a lot of theft of headlights. My guess is it's more of a theft deterrent measure than pure greed.
You deter theft by charging more for your product? Isn't that backwards? Would you bother to steal a light bulb for your car (keeping in mind that you'll get 2-10 years if caught) if it only cost $15? Where's the cost-risk-benefit analysis here?
Granted criminals don't always do a good cost-benefit analysis (local Quickway was robbed: Robbers got $35 and change -- then 5 to 7 years after being caught) but I don't think they'd be such a hot item to steal if they cost $150 vs $3,000.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Yeah! Car manufacturers pulling an Epson? by NDPTAL85 · 2004-04-19 06:17 · Score: 1

The activation of the lights is the theft deterrant, not the price.

--
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Re:Yeah! Car manufacturers pulling an Epson? by red+floyd · 2004-04-19 06:24 · Score: 1

No... he means that the "activation" is a theft deterrent.

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Re:Yeah! Car manufacturers pulling an Epson? by Buran · 2004-04-19 09:30 · Score: 1

They don't cost that much. You can get a set of OEM VW HIDs for Golfs from importers (these will not blind oncoming traffic if properly installed and aimed) for half that or less. I think the article is quoting the MSRP, which is higher than street price on nearly anything. They do cost more than halogens but they also last a lot longer and give you better visibility.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Yeah! Car manufacturers pulling an Epson? by sjames · 2004-04-19 15:42 · Score: 1

Big agreement here! The last time I needed a headlight, it cost me $12.

I find it REALLY hard to believe that the new headlights are 250 times better than my $12 headlights (which nobody has ever stolen).
Re:Yeah! Car manufacturers pulling an Epson? by sjames · 2004-04-19 15:55 · Score: 1

They do cost more than halogens but they also last a lot longer and give you better visibility.

At $1500, they'd BETTER last at least 1000 years, but somehow, I doubt that, and in any event, they'll probably be stolen long before that.
Re:Yeah! Car manufacturers pulling an Epson? by Buran · 2004-04-19 19:41 · Score: 1

I think the MTBF is somewhere around 10-15 years - effectively the life of the car. The VW ones are hard to steal because you have to actually pull the front bumper off to replace the headlight modules. I've done that before.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:Yeah! Car manufacturers pulling an Epson? by sjames · 2004-04-20 00:39 · Score: 1

I replaced A (as in just one of them) headlight once on my 20 year old car. Since it was a car my dad bought new, I know that they had not been replaced before. HID headlights sound like an increadibly bad idea at this point. $150 per year per headlight vs <$0.12.
Re:Yeah! Car manufacturers pulling an Epson? by Buran · 2004-04-20 03:15 · Score: 1

Yes and no. If you think the improvement in visibility is worth the price, then they are a good idea. On most cars that have them, though, they're optional. If you don't think they are worth it, for now halogens are still available. I think the price will come down as they become more prevalent.

--
i am a soviet space shuttle

Mechanics by tedgyz · 2004-04-19 04:40 · Score: 1

My cousin has been a mechanic nearly all his life (44) - his dad owned a garage. As an engineer, I could always relate to his job, since there are many parallels. It has been interesting to see the evolution of cars and how his skills changed. He went from a greasy mechanic working under the car, pulling out 500 lb. transmissions, to an electronics wizard fixing computer-controlled transmissions from the driver's seat. The coolest thing was watching him drive-by-wire using the diagnostic computer.

--
"No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai

I LOVE my Jeep Cherokee by n1ywb · 2004-04-19 04:41 · Score: 1

Introduced in 1986. Produced with very few changes through 2001. Cheap and easy to fix, cheap and easy to find parts. Nothing whacky. Jeeps go best.

--
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com

Re:I LOVE my Jeep Cherokee by Darth+RadaR · 2004-04-19 05:42 · Score: 1

What the man said! I love my 95 Cherokee. With over 97,000 miles on it, I've had only one problem that I couldn't solve by myself (and a Hayes manual).

Sure, it's not very flashy (actually, I think it has "bling-bling" repellent), but it will run through anything la.us roads will throw at it. There's nothing like passing a stalled BMW or Lexus when the roads flood. :)

Unfortunately, Jeep no longer makes those classic Cherokees. ;( All that's left in the SUV market are glorified mini-vans with slightly raised suspension masquerading as sports vehicles. <sigh>

--
/*drunk.. fix later*/

Safe vs. Cheap by azadrozny · 2004-04-19 04:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

I for one don't mind (too much) paying extra for some added safety features. The kid who fliped his parents BMW should be thankful he walked away. 10-15 years ago, that probably would not have been the case. I am sure that some of the reduction in traffic fatalities can be attributed to simple things such as wearing seatbelts and child safety seats. But most of the reduction is due to the fact that cars are better designed to protect the occupant. Safety cages, crumple zones and air bags are expensive to repair/replace but if the worst part is an increase in my insurance rates then I consider it a fair exchange.

Cars had better get safer, because drivers sure aren't.

Re:Safe vs. Cheap by cr0sh · 2004-04-19 12:03 · Score: 1

What I would like to know is what the kid was doing to roll the vehicle? Was the CG on the car too high (couldn't be, not on a regular car unless it was top loaded heavily on a roof rack or something)? It is very difficult to roll most cars, unless you are really trying (or very unlucky, I suppose)...

--
Reason is the Path to God - Anon

buy smart then by buht · 2004-04-19 04:42 · Score: 1, Interesting

I am an American and I drive a 1993 Toyota Celica. It has no problems and about 150k miles. I am very confident I will get 300k or more out of it too. Dont get me wrong, Ive had a Jeep , 2 F150's, 2 Toyotas, 2 Hondas, 2 Mustangs, and they all have their perks but if you go used and buy foreign then you wont need to complain about high prices of new cars and new parts. Yes these foreign cars have more expensive parts, but hell, if they dont break because they were built smart then you dont need to buy them. I will always be a classic mustang fan though :) You have your toys and you have your logic. Choose wisely.

--

-- The box said Windows 2000 or better... so I installed Linux

$3000 for Lights? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 04:42 · Score: 1, Informative

Even if your car remains accident-free, some of today's high-tech parts can leave you with big repair bills. The celebrated find for car thieves these days is xenon high-intensity-discharge headlights. They can cost up to $3,000 each. That's just for the part, not labor.

I don't know where they got this, but I totally disagree.

Take a look at ...

http://www.coolbulbs.com/
http://www.brighthead lights-hid.com/

The bulbs themselves cost anywhere from $30 to $100 a set. It may cost a few *hundred* dollars to replace the ballast, and a few wires, etc., but *thousands* to replace the lights? I'm skeptical.

yea for neaderthal-tech! by kpharmer · 2004-04-19 04:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

sometimes old technology kicks butt. I've got a pair of 70s IH Scouts that I bought for a few thousand dollars years ago.

They're now over 25 years old, are driven every day, and never break down (well almost).

Advantages
- initial cost was very low
- labor is cheap & easy
- parts are very cheap and readily available
- most components are extra-heavy-duty, and so last hundreds of thousands of miles
- seven passenger convertible
- can use it to pull stumps on the weekend then commute topless during the week!
- gets better mileage than a new truck
- more fun to drive than most new trucks

Disadvantages
- no cup-holders
- no airbags
- no cup-holders
- loud on the highway
- even with extra emissions equipment, it isn't as clean or efficient as a new economy-oriented vehicle.

And the best part? After a day of listening to vendors describe how their shiney new product has made everything we're using from 2003 so obsolete...getting into a vehicle designed in the early sixties that still outperforms many new vehicles on the road. Screw disposable, build something amazing and folks will use it for decades.

Re:yea for neaderthal-tech! by vjmurphy · 2004-04-19 05:11 · Score: 2, Funny

"Disadvantages
- no cup-holders
- no airbags
- no cup-holders"

Sheesh, how much do you drink?

--
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice

you can't have it both ways by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2004-04-19 04:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Most, if not all, the technical advance in auto manufacturing has to do with government emissions regulations. People asked the government to demand better air quality and emissions from cars. This is the result. As always, you can't have it both ways (cheap easy to work on car vs. car that get's good mileage and has low emissions).

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck

Re:you can't have it both ways by wikkiewikkie · 2004-04-19 06:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

All right! Way to eat up the spin the automobile manufacturers feed you! The truth is average fuel economy for new vehicles has been on the decline since 1980. Most of the mainstream vehicles which do get good fuel economy nowadays are using conventional small displacement engines with fuel injection technology similar to that first used in the early 80's.
Re:you can't have it both ways by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 06:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

you mean those cafe standards that most cars can be exempt from. a pt cruiser is exempt, because its a "truck"

so are SUV's. the EPA is truley useless when it comes to its job. (how about that reformulated gas, lower mileage, higher worse pollution, and it ruins your engine)
Re:you can't have it both ways by caswelmo · 2004-04-19 08:06 · Score: 1

What is this "average" you speak of? As I see it, I'm now able to buy a very nicely equipped & roomy car with excellent gas mileage. Where as, 10 or 15 years ago all I could get was a shoebox with wheels for the same mileage. I'll take the former.

Sure, the "average" might have gone up, but this is only because people are buying bigger cars.

Listen, if Mrs. Mom sits down and runs the numbers here's what she might see. At 12,000 miles per year & $2 per gallon of gas I can pay around $800 a year if my car gets 30 mpg. Of course, I can get a big SUV and only pay $800 more than that in a year. Wow, for $800 a year I get tons of room & I can haul around the kids, pick up tons of stuff, & not have to worry about being crushed when I get T-boned by a Hummer when I run a red light! Seems like a pretty easy choice.

Besides, people are willing to pay $10,000 more for an SUV than a car in the first place. Do you think they care about $800 a year in gas?
Re:you can't have it both ways by Kiryat+Malachi · 2004-04-19 08:18 · Score: 1

Sit in an 89 Civic. Now sit in a 04 Civic. Now park them side by side and look.

And remember, the 04 Civic gets 36/44mpg, and the 89 Civic gets 34/38. In a much bigger vehicle.

--

---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Re:you can't have it both ways by BigBir3d · 2004-04-19 09:54 · Score: 1

The good gas mileage is a lie. Go look on a new car lot, and the average car is still getting middle 20's mileage in the city. Seems to make sense to me that if the average mileage was now in the high 30's, that the US would be using less gasoline, lessening our need for OPEC products, helping the environment, and overall just doing the right thing. The amazing thing is, neither of the scientificlly aloof political parties in this god forsaken country have been able to figure this out. And before the Dems starting blaming Reagan/Bush, look at Clinton's record. Thanks.

Don't believe the hype! by mduckworth · 2004-04-19 04:44 · Score: 3, Informative

I just put HID Headlamps in my BMW M3 for $196. Not $3000. If the prices are so skewed when it comes to relating the other issues, than we can't exactly trust this article. Yes cars are getting more expensive to fix, but it's only because of manufacturer's strangehold over diagnostic data.

As a former tech... by gillbates · 2004-04-19 04:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

The article is wrong/unclear in a few places:

$10,000 for tools - that's just to get _started_. It isn't at all uncommon for an experienced mechanic to have more equity in his tools than in his house; $40,000 is not at all uncommon.
The "special tools" racket is nothing new. As early as 1969, Chrysler required a "special tool" for removing the distributor - it was a factory-approved ball peen hammer.
True, cars today have fewer user-maintainable parts, however, they last longer. Prior to fuel injection, a four cylinder engine could get about 25 miles to the gallon and would last about 85,000 to 100,000 miles. It would produce about 95 to 100 horsepower, and would have to be tuned up every 10,000 to 15,000 miles. Today, a car with a "standard" four cylinder engine averages around 35 mpg, produces 120 horsepower, can go for 100,000 miles between tuneups, and will last about 200,000 miles with good maintenance.
Over the course of 100,000 miles, the increase in fuel economy will save more than 1100 gallons of gas. At 1.85 per gallon, that's about $2100. Add in the cost of 6 tuneups (at $350 a piece), and now you've saved $3900.
Thanks to fuel injection and electronic ignition timing, a normally aspirated 4 cylinder engine can easily produce 140 brake horsepower. A turbocharged four can now easily break the 225 hp mark. Prior to this, horsepower figures like these required a V8 and abysmal fuel economy. (And note that the 400+ hp figures quoted in vintage promotional materials were actually measured at the flywheel, not the car's wheels. When the SAE adopted the new standard, V8's that had formerly been rated at 350 hp were now rated at 200.)
Carbureuted cars were notorious for failing to start in the winter. 25 years ago, _no one_ started their car in winter and attempted to drive off without first letting the engine warm up - most would stall. While it was possible to tune a carbureuted car for winter starts, doing so resulted in the engine running a little richer than it should, and it had to be done every season.
35 years ago, the average person could understand enough about an automobile to do their own repairs, and many of them did - quite frequently, as a matter of fact. If I owned a vintage car, with my driving schedule, I'd have to:
1. Rebuild the engine every other year.
2. Replace the brakes every year.
3. Pay $3300 a year more in gasoline.
4. Tune up the car twice a year.
5. Change the oil every five weeks. (Which hasn't changed for new vehicles...).

The only area in which cars have not become lower maintenance is oil changes. You still need to change the oil every 3,000 miles. But aside from that, most cars today require very little maintenance compared to their simpler predecessors.

Yes, cars are more complicated, but for the first time in history, machines with moving parts are more reliable than those without. The average PC is less reliable than the average car, and given a choice, I think most people would rather have a reliable vehicle than a simple one requiring more maintenance.

--
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.

Re:As a former tech... by torgosan · 2004-04-19 04:59 · Score: 1

"You still need to change the oil every 3,000 miles."
It is the oil companies & quickie oil change joints that would have you believe this. If true, why does my vehicle's manufacturer recommend 5,000 or 7,500 mile oil changes, depending upon driving conditions? I'm not negating the need for regualr service but let's not perpetuate the hype.

--
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand". -Milton F.
Re:As a former tech... by briansz · 2004-04-19 05:29 · Score: 1

for the first time in history, machines with moving parts are more reliable than those without.The average PC is less reliable than the average car

You, sir, have obviously never been acquainted with my Dodge pickup and my Asus-based dual 2100MP system running Knoppix. The 2100MP machine has nothing to worry about in this contest, better uptimes than the Dodge are pretty routine.
Re:As a former tech... by shfted! · 2004-04-19 05:56 · Score: 1
I guess my 1986, normally aspirated, carburated, 4 cylinder 1986 Ford Escort must be an exception:
- Although it's carburated, I still get 29 mpg with winter tires, and about 40 mpg with summers
- The engine has lasted 230,000 km (142,000 miles) without a single overhaul, and almost no maintenance until last year (had to get a carburator and timing belt replaced). It's still got plenty of life in it -- I frequently pass cars going up hills -- although it has lost some compression.
- I'm sure I'd get better mileage were it fuel-injected, but 35 mpg throughout the year is still great
- I am a bit low on the hp, around 100, and the pickup is a little slow at low rpm -- I would like fuel injection for that.
- I have never had a problem starting my car when it's -35 C (-31 F) outside, and I've never plugged it in. I start it and go. It's manual, so it's my fault when it stalls. Granted, my car is only 18 years old, not 25, but close. I laugh as I see all these newer (and other older) vehicles have trouble ;)
Of course, I am rather green about repairing cars, and have a mechanic for that.
--
He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
Re:As a former tech... by kylector · 2004-04-19 06:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

It is the oil companies & quickie oil change joints that would have you believe this. If true, why does my vehicle's manufacturer recommend 5,000 or 7,500 mile oil changes, depending upon driving conditions? I'm not negating the need for regualr service but let's not perpetuate the hype.

Let's get a few other things straight, too. There are two reasons that a car company can suggest a change interval of that length.

One, Schedule "A", which is pretty much no one and means you drive about 30+ miles every time you start the car, and it's all freeway with no stop and go. Stop-and-go and short-trips are not optimal, which is what schedule "A" is.

Two, some companies (usually upper-class vehicles like BMW) use synthetic oils, which last longer. In fact, some people will drive 10k-15k on synthetic oil because it takes that much longer to break down. But, you'd better have a big oil-filter on there if you're going to do that.

Have you ever changed your oil yourself and looked at it? 3k on dino oil really will turn the color pretty dark. That dark oil is contaminated and will not lubricate the engine as it should, leading to greater wear and earlier breakdown of the engine.

That same hype you talk about also says that new cars with plantinum spark plugs can go 100k miles without a tuneup. Hmm, I do mostly freeway driving with my car, it's a 2000, and it has 76k miles on it. I pulled out the plugs yesterday and they could've used a change a long time ago. And yes, my spark plugs had all kinds of "hard" and "complicated" technology on them, like the fact that there are no spark plug wires and the plugs aren't sticking out of the engine. Instead they're underneath those crazy things called "glow-packs" that are held in with torx screws, and the plug requires a 5/8" socket with about a 10" extension on it to take out. Whoa, that was too complicated. I can't believe I was able to adapt.

I guess the point is don't be so quick to bash the hype when you don't know what you're talking about. You shouldn't believe it whether it works in your favor or against. It's all hype, period. Make sure you get the facts about what was actually used in tests before you believe it (like the difference in oil-life for dino oil vs synthetic, and schedule "A" style driving vs schedule "B" style driving).

I can't believe I just ranted for that long. I'm done now, thanks for listening, don't miss another edition next week.
Re:As a former tech... by racer19 · 2004-04-19 06:13 · Score: 1

And note that the 400+ hp figures quoted in vintage promotional materials were actually measured at the flywheel, not the car's wheels. When the SAE adopted the new standard, V8's that had formerly been rated at 350 hp were now rated at 200

This is incorrect. HP Ratings All manufacturer HP ratings are measured at the flywheel. In the past, these were SAE Gross ratings that were measured sans accessories, full exhaust, etc. Ratings since the 70's are SAE Net which include all of the above to provide a more realistic representation of actual performance.

--
Could someone please point out to me where in the Constitution, exactly, is the "Right To Not Be Offended"?
Re:As a former tech... by Spoke · 2004-04-19 07:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

Have you ever changed your oil yourself and looked at it? 3k on dino oil really will turn the color pretty dark. That dark oil is contaminated and will not lubricate the engine as it should, leading to greater wear and earlier breakdown of the engine.

Just because an oil is dark, does NOT mean that it has no life left in it. Just because an oil looks new, does NOT mean that it can lubricate worth crap! If you based oil changes solely on when the oil turned dark, you would be changing the oil more often than 3k, except on the cleanest of engines.

An oil that turns dark quickly is a sign of a good oil, that means that is is trapping and holding soot and other contaminants in suspesion. Where any large particles can then be filtered out of the oil by the oil filter.

You are right, short trips and stop and go driving are hard on an oil because the car will be running rich, and this leads to fuel running past the rings and mixing into the oil. Gasoline is a very poor lubricant. This is one area where modern engines have a definite advantage over older engines as fuel injection does a wonderful job of running the engine as lean as possible limiting the amount of fuel dilution.

Even if you're running synthetic oil, I would not be so quick to trust any manufacturer who claims you can run 10k-15k between oil changes, unless you fall into the light-duty driving category of all highway cruising and moderate speeds. I've seen too many used oil analysis results from those engines where the oil has thickened way out of grade and wear metals are significantly elevated.

The only real way to know how well your engine is holding up under your driving conditions is to perform an oil analysis, sending your used oil off to a lab to measure wear metals and other characteristics of the oil.

If you're curious to learn more about oil and how to maximumize the performance of it and minimize the time between oil changes, I suggest that you head over to the BITOG forums where you will find a LOT of information on oils and cars.

Another interesting site is the Synthetic Oil Life Study where they are testing various synthetic oils to see how well they hold up long term.
Re:As a former tech... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 07:36 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yes, cars are more complicated, but for the first time in history, machines with moving parts are more reliable than those without. The average PC is less reliable than the average car, and given a choice, I think most people would rather have a reliable vehicle than a simple one requiring more maintenance.

The problem is when one of the electronics systems on your car goes out in 15 years then, as with a PC of that age, you're most likely screwed and will have to scrap the car. The point a lot of people here have made is that if older, less fuel efficient cars can last much longer - because out of production metal parts are much easier to replace than out of production ICs - then how much better off are we with newer cars in terms of saving resources and preventing pollution?

Personally, I can see the benefit of having the powertrain with electronic control but I prefer to have computers limited to that area. From my perspective, the question is "Why do I need this to have computer input?" rather than "Why shouldn't we put computers in everything?" E.g., cars coming with variable power steering almost always get poor reviews for feel and generally can't match the feel of a Lotus Elise's steering rack with no power steering at all (or the Focus RS/Ford GT steering rack with power assist). These days mostly useless, occasionally detrimental, computer interference in cars seems to be a main selling gimmick. It not only can hurt the driving experience but it will definitely hurt the cars' long term usefulness. Just look at BMW iDrive - the bane of many a driver, already having at least one instance of trapping an occupant inside their own car until a passerby saw the situation and broke a window to let them out. Imagine how unmaintainable that system is going to be in 20 years.
Re:As a former tech... by Backov · 2004-04-19 08:18 · Score: 1

He said Vintage cars man. 86 is old, but not that old.

--
In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
Re:As a former tech... by kylector · 2004-04-19 08:46 · Score: 1

I definitely agree with you on your points. Also, that "Synthetic Oil Life Study" link is great. I find it very interesting that most of the wear seems to happen in the first 3000 miles. Makes me wonder if I should wait a little longer to change mine than when I had planned to.

Thanks for your insight and that link.
Re:As a former tech... by Kiryat+Malachi · 2004-04-19 08:53 · Score: 1

I have a mechanic I trust not to lie to me.

My time is worth money. The cost of parts is not the issue; me buying the headlights or my mechanic buying the headlights, doesn't matter to me, they'll cost the same. On the other hand, he charges less to do the repair than the monetary equivalent of my time.

Could I fix my car? Sure, if I wanted to spend the time. But I don't. I'd rather write music, or read, or waste my life on Slashdot.

--

---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Re:As a former tech... by betis70 · 2004-04-19 10:53 · Score: 1

>>Carbureuted cars were notorious for failing to start in the winter. 25 years ago, _no one_ started their car in winter and attempted to drive off without first letting the engine warm up - most would stall. While it was possible to tune a carbureuted car for winter starts, doing so resulted in the engine running a little richer than it should, and it had to be done every season.

Sorry if this is a silly question, but isn't that what the choke does? I had a manual choke on my Triumph. I could adjust the amount of choke I needed when I drove it in the winter (yes, in CT. Brrrrr). I always let it warm up a little, but I could zoom off and slowly push the choke cable in as the car got up to temp.

--
I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
Re:As a former tech... by alexkorban · 2004-04-19 11:55 · Score: 1

Actually, new European cars need to have oil changed a lot less often. IIRC, on some of them it only needs to be done every 20000 km. American cars use cheap mineral oil, and it has to be changed a lot more often.

--
Free posters and articles for business analysts and project managers
Re:As a former tech... by my02wrxsti · 2004-04-19 15:30 · Score: 1

Most new cars are using Synthetic or Semi-synthetic oils and stretching the oil changes out a lot further than 3000 miles (4800km). All current model Subarus in Australia have 12500km service intervals (7800 miles). This applies even to the turbo cars. While I do intermediate oil changes, it says a lot that Subaru give a 3 year unlimited km warranty with that sort of treatment.
Richard.
Re:As a former tech... by boots@work · 2004-04-19 17:34 · Score: 1

my02wrxsti (706498) wrote:

All current model Subarus in Australia have 12500km service intervals (7800 miles).

So what kind of car do you have? :-)

Its partially intentional by nurb432 · 2004-04-19 04:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

1 - it keeps the dealers service department in business.

2 - it makes customers more likely to just buy a new car, rather than spend 10 grand on repairs as the car gets out of warranty.

Scary part is that people who want options are going to be out of luck soon. Between people not supporting parts for 'real' cars, and government mandates for features such as black boxes...

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

I'd do it by glenebob · 2004-04-19 04:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

>> The best people to find are those who have worked in the IT [information technology] industry.

Man I'd go back to that industry in a heart beat if they'd pay me anywhere near as well as I get paid for software dev... All this sitting in a sunless little dungeon room staring at a CRT all day is for the birds.

Re:I'd do it by djeaux · 2004-04-19 04:59 · Score: 1

All this sitting in a sunless little dungeon room staring at a CRT all day is for the birds.
Well, now you get to stand all day in a pretty grimy environment with only a nod to heating & cooling, staring at a CRT on the diagnostics bench, wiping greasy hands on your coveralls ;-)
OTOH, you will get to hang a nice "auto parts store calendar" next to your tool box & the political correctness police aren't likely to stop you.

--
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
Re:I'd do it by glenebob · 2004-04-19 05:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

You mean I'd *gasp* be more exposed to my environment? I'll take it!!! Besides, I rather like a grimy environment, and I don't have issues with cleaning the place up every day.

Every job has it's minuses, for sure, but I REALLY miss the physical activity I used to get. I just don't miss the crappy pay check :-)

Why blame technology? by composer777 · 2004-04-19 04:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why would you blame technology where blaming market economics makes more sense? Automakers are motivated by one thing, profits, and since it's more profitable to make disposable cars, that's the direction they will go. This has little to do with technology. So, perhaps you guys should quit titling your articles, "Technology makes cars disposable" and switch to a more honest assessment of the problem, which is "Market Economics makes cars disposable". In fact, the majority of the problems in the tech industry is related to the haphazard, profit motivated nature of market economics. It's a very short term kind of thinking, where somehow it makes sense to create a bunch of junk that only last 10 years. It's what I like to refer to as innovation of garbage, where the primary motivation is create products that head for the nearest landfill as quickly as possible so that another one can be sold. In a sane society, technology would be used to minimize effort, create efficient products that last, etc., in an insane society, technology is used to create extra work (extra jobs), products that fill land fills as quickly as possible, and in general, waste everyone's time. Yay capitalism. In the long run, we will need to come up with a better system than any that are around today, otherwise, it's only going to get worse.

Re:Why blame technology? by gi-tux · 2004-04-19 05:01 · Score: 1

My dad said many years ago that Detroit (you know that used to be the car capital of the world) was trying to make a throw-away car. He was saying this in the 60s and 70s so his spin was a little different than technology. His assessment of the situation was that they would lay down the first part, then attach the second part. When the third part was addded, it would be added in such a way that you couldn't remove the second part without removing the third part. The third part couldn't be removed until the fourth part was removed, etc. Then finally they would weld the last piece into place with a link all the way through to the first part. In that manner, you could not work on or repair the car. Once anything quit working, even as simple as a spark plug or a tire was low on pressure or the oil needed changing, you would have to get a new car.

So maybe he wasn't quite right on the actual outcome, as they are simply soldering the last piece in place :-) but his prediction is getting closer to coming true. After all that is better for Detroit because soldering is cheaper than welding. And they really don't have to tie all the pieces together, they just have to make they cost enough.

And are they working with the RIAA and MPAA on the DMCA stuff? Have they sued anyone for making duplicate parts yet? Are the designs of the parts copyrighted so that you can't copy them? That will likely be the next step if it isn't already happening.

--
I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
Re:Why blame technology? by Pig+Hogger · 2004-04-19 05:41 · Score: 2, Funny

My dad said many years ago that Detroit (you know that used to be the car capital of the world) was trying to make a throw-away car. He was saying this in the 60s and 70s so his spin was a little different than technology. His assessment of the situation was that they would lay down the first part, then attach the second part. When the third part was addded, it would be added in such a way that you couldn't remove the second part without removing the third part. The third part couldn't be removed until the fourth part was removed, etc. Then finally they would weld the last piece into place with a link all the way through to the first part. In that manner, you could not work on or repair the car. Once anything quit working, even as simple as a spark plug or a tire was low on pressure or the oil needed changing, you would have to get a new car.

The simple fact that there are engineers who worked on such a project is a good indication that engineering profession needs a serious kick in the ass.

A good start would be to require that every engineer, in order to keep their license, should be required to shoot and kill (with as much pain as possible) one MBA per fiscal year. This would have the added side-benefit of making MBA think twice before proposing such schemes.
Re:Why blame technology? by Casshan-Robot+Hunter · 2004-04-19 06:04 · Score: 1

Actually, I do believe that some auto makers did try to sue some third party auto parts manufacturers, but were smacked down in court.

--
Why oh why didn't I take the purple pill?
Re:Why blame technology? by iminplaya · 2004-04-19 06:06 · Score: 1

They probably have gone after third partys for making "bootleg" parts (a real problem in the aviation industry, for safety reasons, not IP stupidity. Actually, I'n not sure about that even. I think Lycoming went after Superior Air Parts over IP. Can't remember). The whole third party parts issue will become moot when RFID tags become common, working like key fobs. If the tag is not detected, the car won't run.

--
What?
Re:Why blame technology? by guiscard · 2004-04-19 06:09 · Score: 2, Informative

The simple fact that there are engineers who worked on such a project is a good indication that engineering profession needs a serious kick in the ass.

Its not necessarily the engineers faults. A friend of the family developed something for the automobile industry in the 70's and they asked him (insisted) to make it less reliable, so they could make more selling replacements. On those same lines, I wonder how quickly these cars will need to be disposed of.
Re:Why blame technology? by falcon5768 · 2004-04-19 06:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Mod this guy up!!!!!
He's EXACTLY right, its not the cost of the tech, but what the fucking manufacturers make us pay... look at a decent new car today... A car that would have been 12,000 - 17,000 6 years ago (the Caviler which is going off the market now) NOW costs 20,000 fully loaded! Thats 3000 more for the EXACT SAME CAR FULLY LOADED 6 YEARS AGO. THAT BULL, even with market run up it should cost LESS because the cost of manufacturing has already been payed for... your talking about a frame thats over 20 years old (the J body design of the Cavi, and the Sunfire) and a body clading thats almost 10 and it costs MORE now to produce what is essencially the exacty same car if you where to look at a 96 (first year of the current body clading style) and a 2004. HELL most of the parts are interchangeable. If people started buy the cheap cars like the Aveo or the Echo's THEN the manufacturers would get it in their head that people dont want to spend 28000 on a car thats really worth 17,000 in todays market. And even they are overpriced!

--
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Re:Why blame technology? by gcaseye6677 · 2004-04-19 06:40 · Score: 1

And they wonder why the Japanese auto makers got ahead. When the American car companies got fat and lazy, they got hurt bad, and are still recovering from it.
Re:Why blame technology? by composer777 · 2004-04-19 06:59 · Score: 1

Right, and the root of this problem is that the primary motivation of participants in capitalism is to make dollars, and there is absolutely no incentive provided to conserve resources. I was listening to the radio a couple of weeks ago (NPR I think) and there was an economist explaining the problems with GDP as a unit of measure. These problems have been know about for awhile, but nobody cares to fix them. The problem is that everything counts as an increase in GDP. So, if a natural disaster strikes, and a bunch of jobs are created to clean up the mess, that's not a loss, it's considered a plus when measured by the GDP. The GDP basically counts destruction of resources as a net positive. Can you imagine a household budget that counted debt as a net positive? Well, according to the GDP, as long as money is being exchanged, then that's a plus, never mind that the money is being spent to clean up a disaster, or build bombs (the ultimate disposable product), or create a bunch of spam, it's all classified as positive. Believe or not, the destruction caused by 9/11, hurricanes, etc. actually counts as a net positive in GDP. So, with a system of measurement that lumps in everything and counts it all as a good thing, is it any wonder that our system is so screwed up? Nowhere, not even in our tools for economic measurement, is there even a measurement for such things as wastage of natural resources, human misery, etc. What's funny, is that the bad guy in the movie "The Fifth Element" says pretty much the same thing, "I'm doing society a favor by creating all of this destruction (he's a weapons maker), see I'm creating jobs, without destruction, the peopel responsible for cleaning up this mess wouldn't have jobs." The irony is that our measurement of GDP does nothing to refute him and in fact, supports his assertion.
Re:Why blame technology? by bnenning · 2004-04-19 07:29 · Score: 1

Why would you blame technology where blaming market economics makes more sense?

Actually, neither does.

Automakers are motivated by one thing, profits, and since it's more profitable to make disposable cars, that's the direction they will go.

It's only more profitable if consumers will actually buy them. If consumers buy them, that means they believe the benefits of "disposability" (most likely lower purchase prices) exceed the drawbacks. There may be externalities regarding pollution, but those can be handled with a proper tax structure.

It's a very short term kind of thinking, where somehow it makes sense to create a bunch of junk that only last 10 years.

Sometimes it does. You have to consider the opportunity cost of buying the expensive well made product versus the cheaper "piece of junk" which may meet your needs just fine.

in an insane society, technology is used to create extra work (extra jobs), products that fill land fills as quickly as possible, and in general, waste everyone's time. Yay capitalism.

If you have a better plan, start your own business, market the reliability of your products, and make a bunch of money while improving the world. *That's* capitalism.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Re:Why blame technology? by bobbis.u · 2004-04-19 07:32 · Score: 2, Informative

Dude, it's called inflation. With a rate of inflation of say 2.5% over 6 years, $17,000 becomes $19,700.
Re:Why blame technology? by default+luser · 2004-04-19 07:34 · Score: 1

A car that would have been 12,000 - 17,000 6 years ago (the Caviler which is going off the market now) NOW costs 20,000 fully loaded! Thats 3000 more for the EXACT SAME CAR FULLY LOADED 6 YEARS AGO.

MOD PARENT DOWN (-1 doesn't live on planet earth)

Ever hear of a thing called inflation? Even though it has been fairly low in the last 10 years, it has still been there.

Let's take your example: A car selling in 1998 that starts at $12k, and comes fully-loaded at $17k would start at $13,700 today, $19,425 fully-loaded. Sound like the prices you see today?

See this calculator for reference.

--
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Re:Why blame technology? by bnenning · 2004-04-19 07:39 · Score: 1

So, if a natural disaster strikes, and a bunch of jobs are created to clean up the mess, that's not a loss, it's considered a plus when measured by the GDP.

Perhaps in the short term. In the longer term it's a negative, because the resources spent to rebuild would otherwise have been spent on new investments that would have provided greater benefits.

Nowhere, not even in our tools for economic measurement, is there even a measurement for such things as wastage of natural resources

Yes there is; it's called "price". As a resource becomes scarce, demand exceeds supply and the price rises. This encourages both conservation and investigation of alternatives.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Re:Why blame technology? by bechthros · 2004-04-19 07:41 · Score: 2

"So, perhaps you guys should quit titling your articles, 'Technology makes cars disposable' and switch to a more honest assessment of the problem, which is 'Market Economics makes cars disposable'."

How about "stupid consumers make cars disposable"... As an older, wiser man once said, "Never mind what they're selling / It's what you're buying". Vote with your money.

--
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Re:Why blame technology? by falcon5768 · 2004-04-19 07:50 · Score: 1

um jackass, mod poster down for not reading the whole post... even with inflation ,the cost to build something when the manufacturing prosses has been payed for after the first 2 -3 years means the product should go DOWN in price, not up. Inflation is present, BUT the initial cost of a car is the manufacturing prosses NOT raw materials, I know I live in a town whos entire buisness is the manufaturing of GM trucks...
In raw materials, a Silverado costs 6,000 dollars, the cheapest model is over 20,000... and most of the consturction is actually robotic, a lot of the line guys really just watch and guide parts that are welded in by a robot.
So with the machines having been set up almost 12 years ago at our plant and the creation of a new truck being simply a new program, how does inflation factor in to the cost of the car being WAY MORE THEN PARTS + LABOR SHOULD EQUAL...

--
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Re:Why blame technology? by Kiryat+Malachi · 2004-04-19 08:12 · Score: 1

Or, they might have set their prices to pay off their specified rate-of-return after X years on the line, where X is in the range of 6-10.

--

---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Re:Why blame technology? by Evil+Butters · 2004-04-19 08:18 · Score: 1

What about advertising? Now that every other commercial on TV seems to be a car commercial, I'm sure that all of those 30 second spots on [insert favorite prime time show here] must really be adding up. Obviously, that cost will be tacked into the overall price of your new car (not to mention the added costs to offset those nice but necessary $3000 manufacturer's rebates). Personally, I think the main reason for the larger-than-normal increase in the price of new cars recently is also based heavily on these two factors.

--
Homer no function beer well without.
Re:Why blame technology? by composer777 · 2004-04-19 08:35 · Score: 1

Right, but the problem is, if you wait until a resource is scarce, then you've reacted too late in many cases. It's a very risky way to run a society. It's like putting off paperwork to the last minute, it might never affect you under normal circumstances but all it takes in one slip-up and then you're in trouble.
Re:Why blame technology? by misleb · 2004-04-19 08:57 · Score: 1

Yes there is; it's called "price". As a resource becomes scarce, demand exceeds supply and the price rises. This encourages both conservation and investigation of alternatives.

The problem with that system is that conservation doesn't happen until AFTER the resource starts to become scarce. What you get is a system that progressively depletes the environment with no real incentive to replenish or conserve it in the first place. It is a system that see's profit first, and the environment second (often in retrospect). Price doesn't measure wastage of natural resources. It only measures what people will pay for those wasted resources.

-matthew

--
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Re:Why blame technology? by RimfireShooter · 2004-04-19 09:00 · Score: 1

Well you sound like you know what you're talking about - NOT.

Your fully loaded $17K cavalier with 2% inflation over 6 years is ---- $19.1K not much different than the price your complaining about so much and now includes more features than the original one in 96 (didn't check that date...). Ohh - the MSRP direct from GM site is $10,700-$18,175 so maybe they're cheaper....

The car does not have a frame so it cant be 20 years old, and although it is referred to as a J body like its predecessor it is in fact a totally different vehicle and none of the manufacturing equipment used to produce it was re-used from the previous model (the exception may be some conveyors).

Most of what parts are interchangeable? Maybe some driveline components and other misc parts between like model cars - but can I put my 8.1L gas hog from by 2500HD GMC in a Cavalier (that might be fun actually)?

The fact is that some people have more disposable income and they choose to want a nice car. If you don't like them or think they are too expensive don't but them - don't bitch about basic economics. Even the domestics have cheap strippers for those than want them - hell up to last year you could get get a 4-cyl S-10 pickup for $12K.
Re:Why blame technology? by default+luser · 2004-04-19 09:16 · Score: 2

I am not an economist, but this is what I have seen through observation.

As Kiryat mentioned, you don't price your vehicle indiscriminantly as high as the market will bear, and lower that price as popularity wanes.

You study the market and set a price point that will cover your investment and reap a handsome profit, amortized over an expected window of viability. You sell less cars as time goes on, or get rid of "overstocks" with "sales" rather than lower the MSRP.

What this means is prices remain stable, and that is something people like. Fluctuating car prices would totally screw over perceived value, thus causing mayhem for the resale market.

Just imagine if Chevy decided that the MSRP for this year's Cavalier was going to be $10,000. That's a lower price than the 1996 cav was, by the original poster's numbers. It would have a domino effect because all Cavaliers in the same family (1996 on) would have to compete with a cheaper version of themselves. The resale prices would fall.

--
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Re:Why blame technology? by Bad_Feeling · 2004-04-19 10:33 · Score: 1

I think the assumption you make is that they get all their money back for tooling the factory, engineering the product and marketing in the first year, which may not be the case. They might be spreading it across several years so the price doesn't come down. Besides, theres a million other costs associated other than labour and parts, such as energy used, marketing, management fat, car shows, destructive testing, so on and so forth. Oh yeah, and last but not least they also want to make a profit.

--
Disclaimer: On the other hand, I am kind of a psycho...
Re:Why blame technology? by Daetrin · 2004-04-19 10:59 · Score: 1

"in an insane society, technology is used to create extra work (extra jobs), products that fill land fills as quickly as possible, and in general, waste everyone's time. Yay capitalism.
If you have a better plan, start your own business, market the reliability of your products, and make a bunch of money while improving the world. *That's* capitalism."
You're completly missing the point. His argument isn't that capitalism doesn't work. (Although it could certainly be argued that it doesn't, depending on what you claim capitalism is supposed to accomplish.)
What he's saying is that capitalism, especially when combined with a stupid and/or short-sighted consumerism, results in situations that are bad for the group as a whole. Like a system of always turning the other guy in the Prisoner's Dilema game.
It is entirely possible that there are solutions and/or systems that would cost more, but that would result in a better quality of life for everyone down the road. Such a system might very well fail under capitalism, and might not make him any money by trying to implement it, so your advice is ill-applied. "Apply more Capitalism" is not an effective solution to "Capitalism causes these (generic) problems."

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:Why blame technology? by NoMaster · 2004-04-19 12:37 · Score: 1

His assessment of the situation was that they would lay down the first part, then attach the second part. When the third part was addded, it would be added in such a way that you couldn't remove the second part without removing the third part. The third part couldn't be removed until the fourth part was removed, etc. Then finally they would weld the last piece into place with a link all the way through to the first part.
They may have been planning this, but Sir William Lyons of Jaguar perfected it!

Ever tried to repair a leaking heater in an XJ6? I swear the heater core is laid down first, then the plenum box built around it, then the rest of the car built around that. Finished off by the dash pad and windscreen...

Either that, or he was running a work-for-the-dole program for unemployed contortionists...

--
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Re:Why blame technology? by bnenning · 2004-04-19 12:39 · Score: 1

What he's saying is that capitalism, especially when combined with a stupid and/or short-sighted consumerism, results in situations that are bad for the group as a whole.

If lots of individuals are stupid and/or short-sighted, then *any* system is going to have problems, at least any system with any degree of freedom. And the more you move from capitalism to central planning, the greater damage the "stupid" bloc can do by voting for bad policies. You could try a Platonic benevolent dictatorship, but that wouldn't go over well with me and several million others.

Like a system of always turning the other guy in the Prisoner's Dilema game.

Which is foolish from a self-interest perspective. (Assuming indefinitely repeated games, which is a better model of economic interaction than a one-shot).

It is entirely possible that there are solutions and/or systems that would cost more, but that would result in a better quality of life for everyone down the road. Such a system might very well fail under capitalism

If consumers are rational, such a product would succeed. If they aren't, see above.

"Apply more Capitalism" is not an effective solution to "Capitalism causes these (generic) problems."

Well, I don't agree that capitalism is the source of the problems.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Re:Why blame technology? by That's+Unpossible! · 2004-04-19 15:04 · Score: 1

And even they are overpriced!

How can a car being sold in a free market be "overpriced"?

It might be more than you're personally willing to pay for the car, but that is an entirely different matter.

--
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Re:Why blame technology? by That's+Unpossible! · 2004-04-19 15:07 · Score: 1

How about "stupid consumers make cars disposable"... As an older, wiser man once said, "Never mind what they're selling / It's what you're buying". Vote with your money.

We have voted with our money. We want disposable cars.

--
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Re:Why blame technology? by Technician · 2004-04-19 16:48 · Score: 1

Some technology is making cars last longer. Look seriously into the Toyota Prius. Everyone is frightened of the battery going out for the tune of 5K $. How much is a HID Xeon headlamp?

Now that that is mostly out of the way, here are some facts. The Prius does not have a traditional transmission. It has 13 moving parts. Nothing engauges or disengauges. (no friction parts) No mechanical shifting happens even from drive to reverse. All the high failure items (almost) are taken off the belt. It has no belt driven alternator, power steering pump, smog pump, and even airconditioner compressor (2004 model is electric). It still has a belt driven water pump. The transmission does not need regular automatic transmission type service. It does not have a oil cooler or dipstick. At 30,000 miles a fluid level check is all that is recommended in the service schedule. It does have a couple of additional maitenance items that a traditional car does not have such as changing the inverter coolant and the extra waterpump can be another point of failure, but it's a small electric pump and easly changed.

The fears regarding the $5000 battery; In the United States, there has been no warranty battery replacements. There is a Taxi in New York running over 280,000 miles on the original battery. My older American cars I've had in the past were pretty much wobbeling down the freeway with sagging doors that would not close properly and breaking power steering hoses, radiator cores leaking, alternators and starters dieing, and fuel pump failures at less than 150,000 miles. I'm looking forward to a new level of reliability in an older Prius. If I need to change the battery at 200,000 miles, no problem. They expect the battery to last the life of the car of 15 years. I have not driven many cars over 15 years old lately, so the battery is not an issue with me. The Pirus does not have brushes in the electric motor/generators. It does not have conventional low voltage alternator or starter. Alternator and starter failures are a thing of the past. Believe it or not, (it's been proven) if you have a dead low voltage battery (left the lights on or something) it can be jumpstarted from 8 D cell alkaline batteries. All that's needed is to boot the computer. The low voltage battery is not used to crank the car. That makes the need of a large poluting lead acid battery a thing of the past. The Prius uses a small 12 volt cabin gel-cell battery. Not having all the rest of the stuff on regular cars that break stranding me all the time is a major plus.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:Why blame technology? by JimBobJoe · 2004-04-19 17:29 · Score: 1

Whoa there!

Yes the price of cars is numerically higher, but once you factor in inflation, and, more importantly, purchasing power, the price of cars has gone down.

I've seen statistics sayign that it used to take the average american worker 35 weeks to pay for a new car, whereas today that's in the 20-22 week range.

Indeed, at the state university I'm at, there are more new cars than you can shake a stick at--even your unskilled jobs provide enough money for a car paymen (at least a lease.)
Re:Why blame technology? by Technician · 2004-04-19 17:43 · Score: 1

High repair costs might not be to blame. Technology has made wristwatches and calculators disposable. Tech labor is over $10/hour. A cheap calculator or wristwatch is less than $10. There is no market for repairing these. Because of that, there is no parts market other than a replacement battery. Cars have lots of high tech in them. The skill level of a good mechanic is high. Some one shot high tech parts are very expensive such as air bags and seat belt tensioners. If you don't kill the one shot devices early, the rest of the tech generaly improves the life of the car. Computer controled engines and transmissions have reduced the abuse these got in the past with pinging and hard shifts. Many older cars were ready for car heaven or an engine rebuild at 100K miles. Now it's common for many cars to exceed 300K miles and still pass emissions. Crunching one in a fender bender that deploys air bags is a very expensive event as the safety laws require new certified parts to be used. This is not a usual consumer regular service item. This usualy this is an insurance item. Since the consumer doesn't pay the bill directly but is instead payed by an industry with deep pockets, the usual high mark-up's apply. Consumers are more apt to look to alternatives to high prices and open the market to competition, not the other way around in the current Government and Insurance fed pig trough.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:Why blame technology? by Daetrin · 2004-04-20 01:37 · Score: 1

""Apply more Capitalism" is not an effective solution to "Capitalism causes these (generic) problems."
Well, I don't agree that capitalism is the source of the problems."
And that's a valid position to take, however arguing that the original poster's concerns could be solved simply by subscribing to the Capitalist system was a logical fallacy. Either he's wrong, in which case no solution is necessary, you just need to prove he's wrong, or he's right, in which case your solution wouldn't work.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:Why blame technology? by skarth · 2004-04-20 02:15 · Score: 1

Right, but the problem is, if you wait until a resource is scarce, then you've reacted too late in many cases. It's a very risky way to run a society. It's like putting off paperwork to the last minute, it might never affect you under normal circumstances but all it takes in one slip-up and then you're in trouble.

That is a fallacy. First of all, all resources are scarce. Second of all, prices of natural resources don't change in that way. In most cases, there is plenty of time for the price to rise to cause people to look at alternatives. The only way in which a resource would become scarce immediately would be something like a copper mine explosion in Zambia or some other discontinuous disruption of the supply of a resource. And even then, people aren't stupid - they hold inventories if there's a perceived risk that the future supply of something will decrease.

A free price system is by far the best way that human beings have developed to ensure that scarce resources are put to their best uses. There may be a better way that has yet to be discovered or invented, but until then, letting prices move freely will conserve resources, not deplete them.
Re:Why blame technology? by skarth · 2004-04-20 03:43 · Score: 1

The problem with that system is that conservation doesn't happen until AFTER the resource starts to become scarce.

That happens when the resource is not priced correctly, which comes about when profit is taken out of the system (usually by government action).

If the resources are owned by people and not governments, then the profit motive of the owners will drive them to steward the resources in the manner that puts them to best use.
Re:Why blame technology? by misleb · 2004-04-20 07:52 · Score: 1

The problem with that system is that conservation doesn't happen until AFTER the resource starts to become scarce.
That happens when the resource is not priced correctly, which comes about when profit is taken out of the system (usually by government action).
"not priced correctly"?? What is the "correct" price of something? The price is whatever the market will bare. If I have a resource, I am not going to sell it to you for the "correct" price. I am going to sell it for whatever you will pay for it (and still make a profit).
If the resources are owned by people and not governments, then the profit motive of the owners will drive them to steward the resources in the manner that puts them to best use.
What the heck are you talking about? Corporations don't care about "best use." They just want to sell a product... as much of it as possible. Their drive to be efficient with resources only extends as far as profit demands. When resources are relatively plentiful and cheap, it is often more more profitable to waste resources than to conserve them.
-matthew

--
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Re:Why blame technology? by skarth · 2004-04-20 14:54 · Score: 1

"not priced correctly"?? What is the "correct" price of something? The price is whatever the market will bare [sic]. If I have a resource, I am not going to sell it to you for the "correct" price. I am going to sell it for whatever you will pay for it (and still make a profit).

Ok, this is basic price theory. The price that is set by the market is the 'correct' price. If you are successful in selling something to someone, that means that the price of the thing being sold is the correct price - it's higher than the value of the item to the seller, and it's lower than the value of the item to the buyer. You are both better off.

So by selling something for 'whatever you will pay for it', you are working within the market to drive the price to it's proper level. If you have something that is relatively in demand (like bottled water in the desert) then you will demand a higher price for it; the higher price is a signal to the market that the thing you are selling is relatively scarce. People will see the high price and buy less of it (1st Law of Demand). They will also change their behavior accordingly and try to find cheaper alternatives over time (2nd Law of Demand). Presto - instant conservation.

(Notice that in the above example you are not acting altruistically at all - yet the result of your self-interested actions leads to the conservation of the scarce resource.)

Corporations don't care about "best use."

That's ridiculous. Of course they do, at least if they're for-profit corporations.

They just want to sell a product... as much of it as possible. Their drive to be efficient with resources only extends as far as profit demands.

Exactly! And since these corporations are constantly chasing profits, they will try to be as efficient as possible with (i.e. make best use of) their resources so as to maximize profits.

When resources are relatively plentiful and cheap, it is often more more profitable to waste resources than to conserve them.

Obviously. Which is why you don't see people walking around in stillsuits. The cost of conservation of plentiful resources is not worth it.
Re:Why blame technology? by misleb · 2004-04-20 15:56 · Score: 1

(Notice that in the above example you are not acting altruistically at all - yet the result of your self-interested actions leads to the conservation of the scarce resource.)
True Conservation means conserving BEFORE the resource is scarce. It is a choice, not a necessity or a byproduct of something else. Otherwise we are no better than every other animal on the planet that will expand to consume all natural resources until nature decides to strike back. "Oh, Mr. Lion, you ate all your food and overpopulated? Starve!"
[They just want to sell a product... as much of it as possible. Their drive to be efficient with resources only extends as far as profit demands.]
Exactly! And since these corporations are constantly chasing profits, they will try to be as efficient as possible with (i.e. make best use of) their resources so as to maximize profits.
No. At some point efficiency becomes unprofitable (and operating cleanly is almost always unprofitable) Notice I specified "efficiency only extends as far as profit demands." That is not good enough. That is NOT conservation.
[When resources are relatively plentiful and cheap, it is often more more profitable to waste resources than to conserve them.]
Obviously. Which is why you don't see people walking around in stillsuits. The cost of conservation of plentiful resources is not worth it.
It is "worth it" in the long run. It isn't, however, "worth it" to short sighted, greedy corporations. The faith you conservative types put into "the market" and corporations astounds me. It is like you have absolutely no ability see beyond your wallets.
-matthew

--
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Re:Why blame technology? by skarth · 2004-04-21 02:38 · Score: 1

True Conservation means conserving BEFORE the resource is scarce.

Again, maybe you didn't get the memo: all resources are scarce. Are you proposing that we should try to conserve all resources equally no matter what their relative abundance is? Do you have any idea how costly that would be?

Prices are the mechanism by which the information about the relative scarcity of resources is transmitted to people all over the world. If the price rises, that means that the resource is become relatively more scarce; if it falls, it is becoming relatively less scarce. If a resource is abundant now, but is foreseen to be less so in the future, the price of the resource will increase to reflect that BEFORE it becomes scarcer. Why? Because people are not stupid and try to forecast what will happen in the future; those forecasts are reflected in the price.

Otherwise we are no better than every other animal on the planet that will expand to consume all natural resources until nature decides to strike back. "Oh, Mr. Lion, you ate all your food and overpopulated? Starve!"

Again, let me repeat... the WHOLE PURPOSE of a price system is to provide a signal to people AHEAD OF TIME, BEFORE resources are completely depleted so that they can do something about it (consume less of the resource, consume it more efficiently, and/or find more abundant alternatives). Your arguments about people blindly consuming properly priced resources right and left until all the resources are gone has no basis in reality.

No. At some point efficiency becomes unprofitable (and operating cleanly is almost always unprofitable) Notice I specified "efficiency only extends as far as profit demands." That is not good enough. That is NOT conservation.

Why should a corporation (or anyone for that matter) try to conserve an abundant resource if it's too costly to do so?

If by 'operating cleanly' you have in mind a factory spewing soot into the air or a power plant dumping waste into a river, then you are talking about mis-specified or incomplete property rights, which is a different subject entirely. In that case, some entity needs to obtain enforceable property rights over the unowned resource; once that is done, the owner (like any other owner of any other resource) will attempt to put the resource to it's best use.

It is "worth it" in the long run.

How do you know?

It isn't, however, "worth it" to short sighted, greedy corporations. The faith you conservative types put into "the market" and corporations astounds me. It is like you have absolutely no ability see beyond your wallets.

Ok, let's clear some things up here. There is no such thing as a 'market'. There is no such thing as a 'corporation'. These are abstract things that human beings have created. A 'market' is just a collection of people interacting with each other. A 'corporation' is a group of people with shared goals: the employees, the owners, and the customers. Corporations aren't 'short sighted' or 'greedy', people are.

And those terms are relative anyway - who made you the grand judge of what is short sighted or greedy? What's the time frame for your judgement of short sightedness? And why is your time frame any better than anyone elses? Could you also explain to us benighted fools your rationale for calling someone greedy?

Basically, incentives matter. Prices provide incentives to people to conserve the things that are priced. There is no faith involved, it's basic logic, and it works. If there's a better system that you know of to ensure that resources are managed in the best way possible, please let us mere mortals know about it and then book your flight to Oslo to pick up your Nobel prize.
Re:Why blame technology? by misleb · 2004-04-21 04:16 · Score: 1

Again, maybe you didn't get the memo: all resources are scarce. Are you proposing that we should try to conserve all resources equally no matter what their relative abundance is? Do you have any idea how costly that would be?
No, i'm proposing we all make a conscious effort to conserve all resources now rather than leave it up to "the market" or some future technlology. Unfortunately, active conservation is anti-thetical to our current system. But it is changing. Not because of market economics, but because of people like me who are becoming environmentally conscious.
Your arguments about people blindly consuming properly priced resources right and left until all the resources are gone has no basis in reality.
Too many people ARE blindly consuming "properly" priced resources right and left. What country do you live in? The IRS wrote people checks for $300 dollars (to be paid back later) and were encouraged (by conservatives like you) to spend it on something. It is the very foundation of our economy... consumption. The more people consume. the better the economy. Look around you. SUVs, disposable goods, wasteful packaging. People are going into massive debt just to consume more resources.
I dont' know if this will happen until all the resources are gone.. It happens to other animals in nature if left without an external control. ALthough we'd start to really suffer long before that. (indeed, many people around the world ARE suffering). What do you think would happen if all the people in the world had the standard of living we do? The US is using WAY more resources than it could supply domestically. Look at the trade deficit. We could probably grow enough food, but that is only a small fraction of the resources needed to sustain our standard of living.
[It is "worth it" in the long run.]
How do you know?
I don't. I just know the situation we are in now and wish people had thought (more) about all this 100 years ago while THEY were getting high on technology.
Ok, let's clear some things up here. There is no such thing as a 'market'. There is no such thing as a 'corporation'. These are abstract things that human beings have created. A 'market' is just a collection of people interacting with each other. A 'corporation' is a group of people with shared goals: the employees, the owners, and the customers. Corporations aren't 'short sighted' or 'greedy', people are.
Fair enough. Notice I am not suggesting a change in the structure of markets or corporations. I am talking about people. People need to make a conscious shift in attitude and thought. Hence, I am writing to you (an individual) and not addressing "the market" or a corporation.
And those terms are relative anyway - who made you the grand judge of what is short sighted or greedy?
I'm hardly a grand judge. Who made me a judge? Me. I did. I decided to start seeing beyond my own self-interest. I decided that I am tired of hearing about lakes/rivers that I can't eat fish from. I am tired of hearing about wars over oil and resources. I am tired of worrying about the quality of the air I breath. Technology and overconsumption have gotten us this far, and I am grateful, but it is time to shift gears. There is something to be learned from all those cultures we have suppressed, destroyed, and assimilated over the years.
What's the time frame for your judgement of short sightedness?
Depends on the resource/companies/people in question.
And why is your time frame any better than anyone elses?
Again, depends on the resources/companies/people in question.
Could you also explain to us benighted fools your rationale for calling someone greedy?
My "rationale?" Depends on the person. Don't act like you don't know what greed is.
Anyway, I believe I've made my point. Even you have agreed that our current economic system has nothing built in to conserve abundant reso

--
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Re:Why blame technology? by skarth · 2004-04-21 17:00 · Score: 1

Too many people ARE blindly consuming "properly" priced resources right and left.

How so? In a free society, people make informed personal decisions and consume what they want. There's nothing 'blind' about it. And if you know that 'too many' people are doing something that you don't like, how many is too many? Where do you get all this special knowledge ("too many", "what they need", etc.)?

What country do you live in? The IRS wrote people checks for $300 dollars (to be paid back later) and were encouraged (by conservatives like you) to spend it on something.

What country do you live in? Those were just sped up tax refunds that the taxpayers would have gotten anyway at a later date. Everyone I know invested their checks. I encouraged no one to use their checks for anything. I couldn't care less what other people did with their checks. That's their own business, not mine.

It is the very foundation of our economy... consumption.

Actually, that's not true; the foundation of the economy (any economy, not necessarily that of the U.S.) is based upon 4 things: production, consumption, specialization, and trade. Each is vital; consumption is only one part of the economy.

The more people consume. the better the economy. Look around you. SUVs, disposable goods, wasteful packaging. People are going into massive debt just to consume more resources.

Who are these people you know that are going into massive debt? Do you live near a casino? If people truly are going into debt, they're probably the smart ones, since interest rates have fallen so low, they are paying relatively less for it.

I dont' know if this will happen until all the resources are gone.. It happens to other animals in nature if left without an external control.

External control? You mean like prices? Prices that will rise when a resource is becoming depleted so as to signal to everyone that we should consume less of it?

ALthough we'd start to really suffer long before that. (indeed, many people around the world ARE suffering). What do you think would happen if all the people in the world had the standard of living we do?

That would be wonderful.

The US is using WAY more resources than it could supply domestically. Look at the trade deficit.

Trade deficit? You mean the deal by which we send little pieces of green paper with U.S. presidents on them (something that literally grows on trees) to people in foreign countries, and in return they send us shiny new cars and computers? What a great deal.

I'm hardly a grand judge. Who made me a judge? Me. I did. I decided to start seeing beyond my own self-interest. I decided that I am tired of hearing about lakes/rivers that I can't eat fish from. I am tired of hearing about wars over oil and resources. I am tired of worrying about the quality of the air I breath.

Where do you live? Next door to a coal-fired power plant? Air and water get cleaner year after year. We're not living in some Charles Dickens novel.

Technology and overconsumption have gotten us this far, and I am grateful, but it is time to shift gears. There is something to be learned from all those cultures we have suppressed, destroyed, and assimilated over the years.

"We"? Speak for yourself. Cultures that I have suppressed, destroyed and assimilated: 0.

My "rationale?" Depends on the person. Don't act like you don't know what greed is.

Greed is defined as someone desiring more than he needs or deserves. I don't see how people buying SUVs are 'greedy'. Unless you know better than they do what they 'need' or 'deserve'. Which would be a pretty arrogant thing to believe.

Anyway, I believe I've made my point. Even you have agreed that our current economic system has nothing built in to conserve abundant resources.

Abundant resources by definition don't need to be conserved.
Re:Why blame technology? by misleb · 2004-04-22 04:37 · Score: 1

In a free society, people make informed personal decisions and consume what they want. There's nothing 'blind' about it. And if you know that 'too many' people are doing something that you don't like, how many is too many? Where do you get all this special knowledge ("too many", "what they need", etc.)?
The fact that we use such a large, disproportionate amount of the world's resources is where I get this "too many" figure.
What country do you live in? Those were just sped up tax refunds that the taxpayers would have gotten anyway at a later date. Everyone I know invested their checks. I encouraged no one to use their checks for anything. I couldn't care less what other people did with their checks. That's their own business, not mine.
Do you deny that the motive for giving people the "early refund" was to get people to spend more sooner? Do you deny that the pressure from the government and media is overwhelmingly towards consumption (rather than conservation)?
Who are these people you know that are going into massive debt?
Nobody you'd know, apparantly.
External control? You mean like prices? Prices that will rise when a resource is becoming depleted so as to signal to everyone that we should consume less of it?
Price is an internal (not tied directly to the environment) control, like hunger is to an animal. THere is a relationship between price/resources and hunger/food, but they are not the same thing. Price controls how we consume resources internally. Our country as a whole can't (or won't without a fight) just start consuming less resources just because the price is going up. We're far more likely to go to war to secure more of the resources that ARE there for ourselves. Indeed, some suggest we're already doing it. When we are not going to war for resources, we simply exploit and intimidate smaller, poorer countries; essesentially stealing their resources. That is what empires do. Why do you think we have a military presence in most other contries of the world? 7 were added after 9/11. There are only about 46 where we don't have a military presence.
That would be wonderful.
You didn't answer the question. What do you think would happen? Specifically, what do you think woudl happen to the environment if a few billion more people were driving (and buying) automobiles? BTW, you should visit Mexico City sometime.
Trade deficit? You mean the deal by which we send little pieces of green paper with U.S. presidents on them (something that literally grows on trees) to people in foreign countries, and in return they send us shiny new cars and computers? What a great deal.
Almost too good to be true, isn't it?
Where do you live? Next door to a coal-fired power plant?
I don't, but many people do. I have this strange ability to hear the plight of others.
Air and water get cleaner year after year.
Your air and water gets cleaner year after year. But air in general doesn't. You just push the polution father and farther away from your backyard. If the air is getter better in places other than your backyard, it is because of people like me who make a big deal out of it.
"We"? Speak for yourself. Cultures that I have suppressed, destroyed and assimilated: 0.
Did you support the invasion and susequent Americanization of Iraq?
Oh sure, come election day or terrorism it is "we we we." When it comes to taking responsibility for the horrible things that are going on in the world it is "'We'? Speak for yourself."
Greed is defined as someone desiring more than he needs or deserves. I don't see how people buying SUVs are 'greedy'. Unless you know better than they do what they 'need' or 'deserve'. Which would be a pretty arrogant thing to believe.
Are you are saying that greed doesn't really exist because nobody is in the position to make the judgement? Are you saying that you have never thought

--
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death

Re:Its Too Easy To Fry! Well DUH! by freeze128 · 2004-04-19 04:47 · Score: 1

Stupid engineers! Keep the door chimes away from the stereo! There is no need to integrate them.
The parts should be easily modular. It just makes good sense. Besides, who needs to hear "Door Ajar!" at 50db?

You think THAT'S bad? by finelinebob · 2004-04-19 04:48 · Score: 1

Just imagine how much the Pentagon pays for Humvee headlights!

Re:You think THAT'S bad? by Tony+Hammitt · 2004-04-19 06:20 · Score: 1

Heck, I don't have to imagine. My Dad's a government contractor! :)

More to it than that by poptones · 2004-04-19 04:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

A friend of mine drives a '65 Chevy Nova as his weekend cruiser. He also has a '65 Mustang and two '34 Pickups he installed with modern V6 powerplants and transmissions. His one "modern" car is a ten year old Caravan.

Lots of folks are driving around in 20-30 year old cars. Contrast with this: I recently had a 1995 Lincoln Town Car with one of those "state of the art" 4.6l modular v-8 engines go tits up. Spent a week screwing with it because I'm too cheap to pay the dealership to work on it - replaced a bunch of junkyard type parts - pip crank sensor ($20), ign module ($400 new, BTW), fuel pump, filter, etc. Nothing helped and I didn't have a compression gauge that would reach down to those spark plug holes buried deep in the heads.

So we hauled it 50 miles to the nearest dealership and left it with them - two days and $150 later I find out "it's dead." Simple as that - the fucking thing is dead. A new engine is thousands of dollars and even repairs are incredibly expensive because of all the labor involved to remove things like cylinder heads (all those valvetrain parts are now on the heads, so you have chains and gears and high pressure oil passages through head gaskets). And the engine has, like, 30PSI compression on all the cylinders but two. Why? Don't know and it'd cost several hundred dollars just to find out how extensive the damage is. Meanwhile a USED '95 Towne Car is like $3000, which means it's cheaper to send this one to the junkyard than to fix it.

End result? Now instead of having a ten year old car on the road after extensive repairs, it'll be a ten year old car permanently off the road. One less used automonbile in the chain to support with aftermarket parts, one less used car on the road to provide an alternative to a NEW CAR PURCHASE.

And that's where we're going. Just like those shiny new computers that die a month after their three year warranty runs out and cost as much to fix as buying a whole new computer, we'll end up with cars that are so expensive to fix it's cheaper to buy a NEW ONE. It's not about selling "parts" - manufacturers don't make nearly as much of cataloging, shipping and reselling a $400 part as they make off selling a whole new car. It's all part of planned obsolesence - not just of cars and computers, but an attempt to make obsolete "antiquated" concepts like quality and craftsmanship. Replace art with graphic design; intellect with economics.

Re:More to it than that by kmankmankman2001 · 2004-04-19 06:50 · Score: 1

Well that really blows. I'd say use that as an example next time you respond to one of those youngsters that insist OHV motors are low-tech and that OHC's rule . . . except I'm certain he wouldn't understand you.

--
"The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
Re:More to it than that by Loualbano2 · 2004-04-19 10:44 · Score: 1

That wouldn't explain why he has 30 psi all but 2, if they were ALL 30 psi, or one whole bank, then maybe.

I just wonder what happened that all the sudden he dropped 6 cylinders. It't not like it was gradual, you need at least 80-90 psi (depending on the motor) to get it going. It must have been running like complete shit right before it went dead.

ft

Actually.... by NDPTAL85 · 2004-04-19 04:52 · Score: 1

....with the increasing usage of hybrid vehicles lessening the demand for gas the price of gas will plummet, thus bankrupting the Middle East.

--
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.

Re:Actually.... by ValourX · 2004-04-19 05:10 · Score: 1

Wonderful. Then there will be even more poor, hopeless people in the middle east to turn to fundamentalist wackos who instruct them in the ways of killing people who don't look and act like them...

It almost seems like a better solution to keep buying oil just so the billion or so western asians don't go broke and starve themselves into more terrorism and ignorance.

Not like there's much else you can do with rocky, sandy wasteland.
-Jem
Re:Actually.... by Catbeller · 2004-04-19 05:35 · Score: 1, Informative

Wonderful. Then there will be even more poor, hopeless people in the middle east to turn to fundamentalist wackos who instruct them in the ways of killing people who don't look and act like them...

I'll take the wildly unpopular (and undiscussed) position that that is not the case.

The poor, hopeless people in Palestine, for instance, are not killing people because they don't look or act like themselves. They are pissed off about certain policies vis-a-vis someone is sitting on what used to be their land.

The Al Queda killers did not hate us because they hated our freedom, or our religion. They had a specific grievance primarily, which was the U.S. presence in their Holy Land (which we have totally abandoned for new bases in Iraq). They don't have a problem with us as long as we don't bother their culture; it's not about us being white or christian. It's about their assertion that we should not bother their culture. Not that they're right; it's just that they aren't doing it because we're different.

I can't think of anyone in the world who's a "terrorist" because they hate Americans. Being poor doesn't make you insane. It always starts out with a grievance that makes sense to them; Lebanon,the West Bank, Fallujah, desecration. Then it starts snowballing because of the tit-for-tat and stubborn misunderstanding by BOTH the Americans and the Others. Add in required vengeance for killing, and we have a he-killed-him-so-I-must-kill-you idiot's war.

On the other hand, I live around Chicago's burbs. And I DO hear the young men talking about killing "Afghans", "Iraqi's" and "ragheads", because they "bombed the World Trade Center". They really do think that Islam is now a religion to be despised and crushed. They're immensely confused as to who is who. But they really want to go and kill themselves some "terrorists". And anyone who is moslem or wears a turban is commonly called a "terrorist" on the playground, the gym or even at the dinner table.

An unpopular point, I know. We may be far more guilty of confusing just who the "enemy" is than all those poor, deluded people in the world. Maybe they aren't that deluded? Sigh.
Re:Actually.... by ValourX · 2004-04-19 05:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Totally disagree. The terrorists in Al-Qaida and the Palestinian groups have made it widely known that they hate the Jewish people. Most of their terrorist acts these days are because of American support of Isreal. Bin Laden's biggest motivator was that the dirty white American christians were in his precious holy land. They're intolerant, racist, anti-semitic bastards.

Popular opinion seems to be that the primary cause for this ignorance and violence is lack of proper education and lack of gainful employment. Since the poor people have nothing to do and can only learn from fundamentalist Muslim "clerics," they become terrorists. You don't see any rich kids blowing themselves up to kill innocents that they have never met yet hate passionately.

Anyway, back to oil. Not every middle-eastern nation has oil to sell (or even use). The US has a large amount of undrilled oil but it's hard to get to and too expensive to drill right now, for the most part. One of my best friends owns oil rights to some property in Wellsville NY and used to spend every day out in the oil fields. It's dirty, rigorous work, and although you can make money drilling oil you can't make money paying someone else to drill it for you. In Iraq and Saudi-Arabia the oil is easy to get to and close to the surface; in NY and PA, the oil is far down and underneath a lot of bedrock. Then there are environmental regulations and laws and taxes and special equipment costs for the deep drilling, etc.

Oddly, most of the laborers in Qatar (another oil-rich country) are foreigners from neighboring poor countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan where there is no money, no oil, no work and no hope. Even the people of Qatar tend to discriminate against "local foreigners" (see National Geographic from 2003... er... last spring? It has an arabian guy on the cover). The culture of the middle east is simply an intolerant one.
-Jem
Re:Actually.... by Diabolus777 · 2004-04-19 06:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

So, their point is legitimate. They kill to regain their land. Why do they have to call the rest of the world "infidels" and hide behind god whenever they can? Their position would get much more sympathy if they didn't use religion in such a manner in my humble opinion.

--
We should have been
So much more by now
Too dead inside
To even know the guilt
Re:Actually.... by iminplaya · 2004-04-19 06:29 · Score: 1, Troll

They're intolerant, racist, anti-semitic bastards.

Who?? Al-Qaida or the KKK? Americans are more dangerous to Americans than the Palestinians are. Does worldwide terrorism kill more people than drunk drivers in America? Hell, I don't know. The middle east is only an issue because of the money involved. Once we get the oil monkey off our back, we will forget about the middle east or we'll just give Israel mo' money and tell them to go ahead and take the whole region. We don't need it anymore.

The culture of the middle east is simply an intolerant one.

Heh...come with me to east Texas...or even some parts of the middle west

C'mon folks. Let's build those elevated mag lev tubes, and quit worrying about how expensive cars are getting. (Heh..still remembering my dad's '64 Lincoln at a whopping $4,000usd brand new)

--
What?
Re:Actually.... by d34thm0nk3y · 2004-04-19 06:41 · Score: 2, Informative

Bin Laden IS a rich kid....
Re:Actually.... by jafac · 2004-04-19 06:51 · Score: 1

Popular opinion seems to be that the primary cause for this ignorance and violence is lack of proper education and lack of gainful employment. Since the poor people have nothing to do and can only learn from fundamentalist Muslim "clerics," they become terrorists. You don't see any rich kids blowing themselves up to kill innocents that they have never met yet hate passionately.

Like, prince Bandar, of the Saudi Royal Family - who sent money to a charity that funneled it to Al Qaeda?

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:Actually.... by hyperman.biz · 2004-04-19 06:57 · Score: 1

Bin Laden's biggest motivator was that the dirty white American christians were in his precious holy land. They're intolerant, racist, anti-semitic bastards.
Do you think americans would tolerate having 100,000 soldiers from Saudi Arabia in lets says, Texas ?
The Saudi Royal Family (and the Ben Laden family) have been good business partners of the Bush family for a long time. Saudi Arabia sell the oil, the US supplies the weapons and technology to maintain one of the most brutal dictatorship in the world (Saddam being out of that game).
Re:Actually.... by Probashi · 2004-04-19 08:16 · Score: 1

Well, actually Palestenian movement started as secular movement back in 1948. PLO bad as it was, did not use religion as its justification. Palestanians are comprised of Christians and Muslims both. Late Edward Said, a Christian and a Palestanian was not using Islam for sure to justify the cause of Palenstanians. Even now, Palestenian Authority (as corrupt as they are) has Christians in high places.

But, in the eighties, Israel actually encouraged groups like Hamas to neutralize the PLO. Hamas eventually got strong enough and is now more militant than the PLO.

The bottomline is Palestanians did not get sympathy from the west when they were not using religion and it is going to be even worse now that a good portion of them are using religion.
Re:Actually.... by jjr1 · 2004-04-19 09:02 · Score: 1

I just wonder how long the rest of the world will put up with this cancer that is the Middle East. Having produced nothing but danger to the rest of the civilized world in the name of religion they have little hope for ever being able to coexist peacefully with the rest of the world. They have lived since the industrial revolution over black gold, and one of the most valuable commodities on the planet yet have produced nothing but religious hatred. I seriously doubt materialism will ever take hold there, so they're probably just doomed to be a burden on the rest of the world. Nothing is worse for the world than religious fanatics.

--
Best Trivia answer ever... Name the largest aquatic man eater... Contestant: Tsunami
Re:Actually.... by laird · 2004-04-19 09:48 · Score: 1

"You don't see any rich kids blowing themselves up to kill innocents that they have never met yet hate passionately"

While you'd intuitively think that this would be the case, the terrorists that we've caught tend to be well educated, well travelled people that really, really hate us. Sure, the poor "street rats" may hate us as well, but they don't have the resources or training to cause us trouble. It takes an education to build bombs that work properly, etc.

--
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Re:Actually.... by Keith+McClary · 2004-04-19 10:38 · Score: 1

Actually it will just mean that Saudi princelings and their pals (like the Bin Ladens) will have less petrodollars to spend on palaces in Vail and Vegas and the French Riviera.

Their "loyal subjects" will continue to be dirt poor. Unless they start to get uppity like the Americans 230 years ago. Which they will do, if the Iraqis manage to kick the Americans out.
Re:Actually.... by Chacham · 2004-04-20 05:51 · Score: 1

Well, actually Palestenian movement started as secular movement back in 1948. PLO bad as it was, did not use religion as its justification.

Actually, it started in 1965, with Arafat taking contol in 1969.

--
Have you read my journal today?

Quick Correction by composer777 · 2004-04-19 04:52 · Score: 1

"Market Economics makes cars disposable"
should have been...
"Technology Makes New Cars Too Expensive to Fix"

and this
"Market Economics makes cars disposable"
should have been this...
"Market Economics Makes New Cars Too Expensive to Fix"

but I suppose you guys are smart enough to figure that out. Time for more caffeine...

What about medical costs? by goretexguy · 2004-04-19 04:54 · Score: 1

Sure, I agree, costs to repair cars is going up.

Does anyone have any data over how much insurance companies are saving through decreased medical payouts? (I'm assuming that people are better protected with all the airbags and such.)

Now, if auto manufacturers could only do something about that nut behind the wheel...

Outsourcing Car Repair by akshahidi · 2004-04-19 04:56 · Score: 1

I wonder how long it will take before auto dealerships begin shipping our cars Bangalor for repairs?

Re:Outsourcing Car Repair by BluedemonX · 2004-04-19 05:39 · Score: 1

They won't offshore the cars. They'll H-1B in the Bangaloreans as cut-rate labor.

--

--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix

GM already does... by gillbates · 2004-04-19 04:57 · Score: 1

Auto manufacturers can go a LONG way to lower the cost of cars and car repair by creating a variety of standardized systems.

Ever hear of a small-block chevy V8? This engine was pioneered in the 1950's and is still used today. Interestingly enough, the engine parts made today still fit the classic cars - a 1970 Camaro owner can salvage engine parts from a 2004 Camaro.

GM already modularizes their powertrains. You'll notice that GM offers a few different engine/transmission options, and that these options don't really change from one GM brand to the next.

--
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.

Re:GM already does... by SaDan · 2004-04-19 06:50 · Score: 1

Ever hear of a small-block chevy V8? This engine was pioneered in the 1950's and is still used today. Interestingly enough, the engine parts made today still fit the classic cars - a 1970 Camaro owner can salvage engine parts from a 2004 Camaro.

GM already modularizes their powertrains. You'll notice that GM offers a few different engine/transmission options, and that these options don't really change from one GM brand to the next.

Actually, that's not entirely true. As of 1997/98, very little will interchange between the LS1 engines and the older SBCs. Now, all of the different LS1 engines (4.8L, 5.3L, 5.7L, 6.0L) use a lot of the same parts, just like the older SBCs did (1955-1997).

Now, you could drop an LS1 into a 1970s Camaro, no problem. :-)

Transmissions... GM trannys are so interchangeable, you can go from practically any V8 to any V8, from 1955 to today's engines. All automatics and manual transmissions. Retrofit kits exist for nearly every automatic trans. Manuals are super easy to swap around.

GM's "corporate" engines are exactly that: Used wherever they can in different GM brands to cut costs. I think the best example is the V6/60 engines, used in everything from S-10 pickups, FWD cars, F-Bodys (Camaro/Firebird), minivans, and sedans. 2.8L, 3.1L, and 3.4L variants (3.5L is a newer version of the V6/60, based off of GM's Northstar tech), introduced in the early 80s, and STILL in use (my 2002 Oldsmobile AWD minivan has the 3.4L, gets great mileage).

Honda does a pretty good job of using standard parts throughout their engine lines, at least from what I can tell. I just had to swap a head from a '94 engine onto my '88 block, and it was a perfect drop-in replacement.

Think "Subscription Cars" by swb · 2004-04-19 04:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

A recent newspaper article talked about all the bad financial decisions people are making on cars; really long term loans (8-10 years), negative equity transactions, and so on. The car industry keeps this going because they need to keep plants running and cars selling to keep the whole machine turning, and consumers are dumb ass enough to keep paying massive lease or loan payments.

How do we know that the next step in this consumer financial treadmill isn't "subscription cars"? When it breaks beyond a certain level, you go to the dealership, turn in your car and get into a newly refurbished one. No hassle for the dealer to figure out complicated parts or systems, just basic fluid level maintenence.

Auto mechanics become few and far between; the use/broken/damaged cars are shipped by train/ship to $third_world where they're parted out and reassembled to be returned to dealers. The truly bad parts are either scrapped for base metals or, if modular, further disassembled for their own reassembly.

At this point, we don't have mechanics with any more skill than the droolers at Rapid-Oil and the high value technician jobs really have been essentially outsourced to a third world country. For the US, Mexico would make more sense than India due to simple geography and the size/weight of a car; but it's not improbable that labor rates in India/China/Philipines would be low enough that transhipping cars overseas would make sense.

Re:Think "Subscription Cars" by anagama · 2004-04-19 05:34 · Score: 1
- A recent newspaper article talked about all the bad financial decisions people are making on cars; really long term loans (8-10 years), negative equity transactions, and so on. The car industry keeps this going because they need to keep plants running and cars selling to keep the whole machine turning, and consumers are dumb ass enough to keep paying massive lease or loan payments.
I've had a car payment in one form or another since 1992. But last year, instead of getting a new car, I fought the impulse. Now my car is paid off, runs great, and all I pay is insurance. I love it!
--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:Think "Subscription Cars" by red+floyd · 2004-04-19 06:19 · Score: 1

Hear, hear.

My wife drives a '94 Aerostar. Big, ugly, slow, underpowered a bit (wimpiest 3.0L V6 I've ever seen). It has exactly one saving grace.
It's paid for.

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Re:Think "Subscription Cars" by Pope · 2004-04-19 07:45 · Score: 1

Hell yes.

My Dad had a 1976 Pontiac station wagon. The thing had 180,000 miles on it by the time he sold it in 1992. He did all the routine maintenance himself (tuning, oil changes, etc.), and at the end, all the thing needed was a rebuilt transmission, and I'm sure it would have done another 100,000 miles. The engine was in top shape!

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Re:Think "Subscription Cars" by ross.w · 2004-04-19 09:33 · Score: 1

A colleague of mine from Pakistan says that so-called "reconditioned cars" are available in Pakistan. They take a car that's worn out, and rebuild it to the standard of a new car.

It makes a lot of sense in a country where labour is cheap and raw materials are expensive.

At the moment they are only available domestically, to fill a demand for cheap "new" cars.

In the West (Australia included) the annual model change and improving safety standards in new cars prevents any demand for these, because a car yard can sel a recent model for similar money with nothing done to it at all, and no-one is going to pay A$15,000+ for a 15 year old car, no matter how effectively "new" it is, unless it's some kind of "classic" model.

That may change as cars get more expensive. Then watch out for a glut of reconditioned cars from Pakistan.

--
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?

I know this'll get flamed, but I can't help it... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 04:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've noticed several posters grumping about the cost of a brand new car and how it's at least a 500% markup over "cost", and how the automobile industry is just pure evil for trying to "corner the market on repairs", but let's not forget that our own industry (whether you're a "hardware person" or, like me, a "software person") is guilty of many of the same sins -- no, just because "everybody else is doing it, too!" doesn't make it "right" (I won't accept that answer from my kids any more than my Dad would've accepted it from me...) but there are some dynamics at work here that are pretty easy to see once we get past the "ouch" factor generated by an ever-increasing cost of owning transportation.

Labor is expen$ive! -- There's a common misconception that modern automobiles are "mass produced on automated assembly lines", and while the current state-of-the-art assembly line is more automated (and more cool to watch) than ever, there's still a LOT of touching by human hands going on. Add to that the complication that no matter how automated an assembly plant gets they're still going to be contractually required to employ a certain number of people (whether you're a union fan or foe, you can't deny that they're the ones who really run the show) and at the same time shift more and more of their workload onto those machines/robots.
Technology is expen$ive -- All those robots, controllers, lift-assist devices, etc. aren't cheap , plus they're not servicable by just anybody (a lot of heavy equipment sales contracts include exclusive service contracts -- where do you think the auto industry learned the trick in the first place? They're just aware that no ordinary consumer in their right mind would buy their car from someone who "held them over the barrel" on the maintenance!)
Tech people are expen$ive -- (this is where many of us come in) all that engineering (mechanical, electrical, and computational) expertise (not just directly employed by the auto industry but also employed by their suppliers, with the costs getting passed-on to you-know-where...) comes at a price; a high and ever-increasing one.
Doing business is expen$ive -- Government regulations, public expectations, employee relations, and a myriad of other lumps in the morass that has become business in America make for an extremely costly environment to manufacture just about anything. Let's say, for example, that the media gets ahold of the fact that your automobile company's R&D department used an "open source" CAD system to develop your latest release's state-of-the-art passive restraint system. Regardless of how you or I view "open source" software, the majority of the "unwashed masses" out there still feel more comfortable with some big company's "deep pockets" standing behind a product than a dedicated cadre of nearly fanatical enthusiasts, so voilà, instant class-action suit (and then we're not talking about the majority of the "unwashed masses" out there any more, just a carefully selected 12 of them...)

As a result of the points above (and a good many more than can be typed here with one hand while I eat my lunch with the other), the costs for equipment, supplies, software, education, facilities, even the electricity and water for nearly any major manufacturing facility are driven up, up and UP. "Cost"?!?! Yeah.

Re:I thought disposable cars were already out ther by bastion_xx · 2004-04-19 04:58 · Score: 1

Hell, remember Yugo's? The ultimate in disposable cars, even before you got one off the lot.

An old boss of mine, a real penny-pincher promised his daughter a new car if she got a certain GPA in her freshmen year at college. Sure enough she did, so he went to the Yugo dealership to buy the car. Demanded a car with no additional options on it.

The kicker was he wanted them to give credit on the spare tire too (seriously), until the dealer said that was against state law (Nevada).

Working conditions... by BJZQ8 · 2004-04-19 04:58 · Score: 1

When the working conditions include flat rate work on sometimes impossible schedules and working conditions that would make a sewage technician laugh with glee, there is no surprise in the fact that there is a shortage of techs. In the IT world, you might start on the ground floor manually typing stuff into a database...in the automotive world, you start out changing tires and filling windshield wiper reservoirs. There are lots of disincentives to go into auto repair anymore...claims of $100,000 compensation notwithstanding.

No problems here.. by bmantz65 · 2004-04-19 04:59 · Score: 1

I drive a 1994 Accord with around 150K miles on it. I don't remember too much serious fixes aside from new belts and water pump last summer, but it was time for those anyway. Other than that, runs like a champ. Too bad the engine outlasts the body..

Actually, sounds like a great job change! by ScottGant · 2004-04-19 04:59 · Score: 1

There is a labor shortage? I know NOTHING about cars, but am willing to retrain. Doesn't sound like a bad gig.

When I was fresh out of high-school (1981) computers were going to be the next big thing with "learn how to fix computers and you'll have a job for life". But it seems like everyone else took that same advice and now there is a labor surplus in computer techs.

But I'm 42, would switching careers be too late for me perhaps? Interesting problem...

--

"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.

Re:Actually, sounds like a great job change! by Mick+Ohrberg · 2004-04-19 06:01 · Score: 1

...and now there is a labor surplus in computer techs...
Not for long, if one is to believe a short snippet I head on NPR the other day, where the head of a Computer Science department somewhere in California had to start luring in students with courses like Computer Game Design. It was predicted that within the decade, there would be a shortage of IT workers.

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Re:Actually, sounds like a great job change! by MrIrwin · 2004-04-19 07:52 · Score: 1

"the head of a Computer Science department somewhere in California had to start luring in students with courses like Computer Game Design"
Of course would you do an IT course today? NO, the only people studying IT are the sort of people who might be attracted by the games issue.
It is the dumbing down of western society while the asian one wakes up.
Give it a couple of decades and the asian market will be able to charge what it likes, there will be no western competion or competence.
BTW, an increasing quantity of these fancy cars are also made in the asian markets, with lots of fancy trickworks to cover play it down.

--
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)

Advanced READING skills?! by m.o · 2004-04-19 04:59 · Score: 1

wtf?

Complex cars == Good economics by rockhome · 2004-04-19 05:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

Won't more complex cars provide additional oppurtunity for the "lower class"?

It seems to me that as the requirements to fix the cars increase, so might the pay, providing better jobs for more people.

Could just be my take, but I am a civil egalitarian, so I am willing to put with extra complexity and cost to put decent person to work at a decent wage.

This is a bunch of horse shit by drinkypoo · 2004-04-19 05:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

I am a novice mechanic who has owned and worked on (to some degree) 12 cars. Some of them I ran into the ground, some of them I sold, some of them I ran into other cars. So that was my introduction to learning how to work on cars - buying beaters. About the most complicated thing I've done so far was a head swap on a SOHC toyota motor, or at least I participated in it :P Actually, doing the oil pan on my 240SX without removing the motor was kind of an odyssey all on its own, involving dropping the cross member...

Now, I'm in air conditioning class, have taken an auto body class and an auto paint class, and have been doing that kind of stuff for some time, and as well I have a car that I work on somewhat regularly and my girlfriend has another which I'm going to pull the transmission from soon as I get a sunny weekend. Then, I'm going to be getting a 1962 chevy pickup which is going to need a ton of work. So I know a little something about working on older cars.

The first big thing to make it hard to work on modern cars was the ECU. Code readers came out as a result. It's true that you can't get the really cool codes out of the computer without knowing all the manufacturer-specific information, like the position of mode doors, the values of sensors, and so on. However, the documentation still tells you how to go about testing all that stuff with nothing more complicated than a DVOM. Any shop without a DVOM is no shop at all, so that's no big deal.

Finally let us discuss the price of intensely expensive individual parts. This is a scam by the dealership to make money. However any car with $3,000 headlights (for example - The headlights on a 1991 Acura NSX are $500 each just for the reflectors is pretty much meant to be dealer-serviced-only. Basically all top end cars are meant to be serviced only by the dealer, but no automaker I'm aware of makes cars which are unfeasible to service in any old shop.

With that said, the repair garage is on its way out. Oh sure it'll be many decades before it happens but progress is relentless. Eventually everyone will want to trade in their internal combustion monsters (except for those people doing motorsports, did you know you can run methanol in ordinary engines with minimal conversion? it's high octane, too) for fuel cell, battery-powered, flywheel-powered, or other alternative-energy source vehicles because they will be both cheaper (to operate) and more reliable. As the part count drops the vehicles become easier to repair; Eventually the dealers will end up designing the parts to be easy to replace, and just charging ridiculous amounts of money for them, and anyone who can assemble a children's toy (of course, this isn't everyone) will be able to make any kind of repairs to a car.

Oh yeah, one last note on the computerization of cars ostensibly making it harder to troubleshoot problems with your car: Some of the cars with a screen in the dash have a diagnostic mode you can put them in (outlined in the car's manual) and you can actually use that screen for a code reader. In other words, you get the full benefit of having the code reader, without even having one. This is possible because all the little computers in the car talk to one another on the newer systems. You can see which switches, doors, etc are activated without even plugging anything in.

You have only yourself to blame if you get some high-falutin' car with the little radar parking system and everything, and then expect it to be easy to work on, and repairs to be inexpensive. It simply doesn't work that way.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:This is a bunch of horse shit by NuttyBee · 2004-04-19 09:55 · Score: 1

I hold: BS Electronics & Computer Engineering Technology

I am a few weeks away from: AS Automotive Technology, CA Advanced Emissions License

I might actually be able to get a job with one of those degrees!! (Guess which.) It would be funny, if it weren't so sadly true.

Don't get your hopes up by Pointy_Hair · 2004-04-19 05:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

It will take a fundamental change in compensation practice in the auto repair industry to make it feasable to move from IT to automotive. I made the opposite career move in 97 (auto repair to an IT job) and haven't looked back. Don't believe the stories of six-figure technician salaries. With very few exceptions that is a myth - especially with respect to "educated," non-flat-rate work. With the current system, it's the guy that beats the clock on a book job that gets the good paycheck - and that's not the sort of work that requires a brain trust to complete. Likewise, the service dealers will literally give away diagnostic time because customers refuse to pay for it, thanks to the bogus McTuneup shops that claim to do a complete job for $59.95. Unfortunately, the only guy that usually makes good money in auto repair is the shop owner - and that's with a struggle.

WRT to the expensive parts, you didn't actaully think all those safety features would not cost more than the old stuff? That's why an "economy" car costs what it does. It's litigation insulation that's not optional for the buyer.

One upside = job security. If you can read above a 3rd grade level, have some mechanical aptitude and a decent set of tools, you'll never be unemployed in the auto repair industry unless you just don't want to work. Everyone wants to hire a top diagnostic guy but they're never willing to compensate appropriately. If the worse should happen and I get layed off my IT job, it's comforting to know that I can bring 10 years of experience and college education to bear on the goal of earning $15-20/hour flat-rate.

Re:Don't get your hopes up by NuttyBee · 2004-04-19 10:00 · Score: 1

$15-20/hr flat rate is far better than sitting on your ass for $0/hr.

A lot of people in engineering/IT have made $0/hr for an extended period. It ain't good. Almost makes ya want to go fix a car.

Re:Oxymoron? by shawb · 2004-04-19 05:02 · Score: 1

Easy. Aluminum is hard to bend back to the original shape. Often times cheaper to replace than repair.

--
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman

Disposable cars and UK insurance by Ginga_Ninja · 2004-04-19 05:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

In the UK my experience is that cars are already disposable to a great extent. I don't know why but even the tiniest shunt (ie bent bonnet and dented wing) will deem your car an insurance write off.

Call me cynical, but they get away with devaluing your car so much when they estimate its insurance value ("What? A dog pee'd on the hub-cap 6 years ago? that makes it worth another $1000 less. Next!"), that I guess it is cheaper for them to write off than repair.

--
the future's bright, the future's ginger

HA! Try my Chevy by Vraylle · 2004-04-19 05:06 · Score: 1

1939 Coupe, handles like a tank, and if the starter goes out in the rain, just take the new one (with your tools) into the engine compartment and close the hood. You can even stretch out your legs while you dryly change the part, and maybe through in a tuneup. Heck, there's probably enough room in there to change the TRANSMISSION.

--
Mutant Freaks of Nature: "Frighteningly Addictive"

Re:HA! Try my Chevy by zeugma-amp · 2004-04-19 07:54 · Score: 1

Of course, what is really funny about your post is that it is pretty much true. After you're done changing out the transmission, you can stretch out and take a nap 'til the rain stops.

--
This is an ex-parrot!

A job less likely to be outsourced by nomadicGeek · 2004-04-19 05:06 · Score: 2, Funny

Look on the bright side geeks. If you become an auto mechanic, you will always have work and it isn't very likely that it will every be cheaper or practical to ship a car to India to be fixed.

The icomes of most high end mechanics aren't too bad either.

Great margins? by duffbeer703 · 2004-04-19 05:07 · Score: 1

You call 15% gross margins "high margin"????

When you factor in labor (UAW workers make 30-75/hr), plant overhead, and taxes (disability, real estate, social security, etc) you're looking at -2 - 2% margins with the bulk of profit coming from extended service contracts and financing.

Look at the profit margin for GM (1.6%) and compare it to a successful software company like Oracle (25%), and tell me that automaking is a high-margin business.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK

Are we to believe by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 05:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

Mechanics are some how "less smart" than other individuals, or conversely that people in IT are some how smarter. I'm a programmer and most programmers I know have no clue what is under the hook. Ask 1000 programmers to identify the carburator, or the distributor. How many do you think know the answer to that? Better yet, give a IT guy a manual for building the transmission and engine. How many could do it by themselves correclty on the first try without screwing something up. Modern engines have thousands of parts. Building one and tuning it is not trivial or simple. It takes real talent.

Hell, ask an IT geek to weld some steel and see how sound that weld is. Like technology getting more sophisticated will some how spell the doom of mechanics. Mechanics will change and evolve just like all the IT guys getting replaced with off-shore workers.

Re:Are we to believe by AeroIllini · 2004-04-19 08:07 · Score: 1

Are we to believe
Mechanics are some how "less smart" than other individuals, or conversely that people in IT are some how smarter. I'm a programmer and most programmers I know have no clue what is under the hook. Ask 1000 programmers to identify the carburator, or the distributor. How many do you think know the answer to that? Better yet, give a IT guy a manual for building the transmission and engine. How many could do it by themselves correclty on the first try without screwing something up. Modern engines have thousands of parts. Building one and tuning it is not trivial or simple. It takes real talent.

Here you are confusing "intelligence" with "knowledge." You're right, most programmers could not repair a carbeurator if you placed them in front of an engine with some tools. However, hand them the manual, and they will not only learn how to fix it, but they will probably comment on how much fun it is. I'm sure they won't do it correctly on the first try, but I'll bet that mechanic didn't do it perfectly on *his* first try, either. Conversely, if you set a car mechanic down in front of a Linux Console, s/he will likely not know what to do. But hand them a manual, and they will learn how to fire up a web browser and research prices on that '67 Mustang fan belt they've been looking for.

I notice that most people look down on car mechanics because such a profession does not require a college degree (while programming jobs, in general, do). However, every car mechanic I've ever met/known has been an extremely intelligent, capable, problem-solving type of person. Knowledge is not the same thing as intelligence. Just because you know something that I don't doesn't make you smarter than me. Just because I can't do perfectly on the first try what you have spent years training to do doesn't make you smarter than me, either. What makes you smarter than me is your ability to learn new things faster and/or use existing knowledge in a novel way to come up with a new solution. Both car mechanics and programmers do that. Same problem-solving skills, different worlds.

--
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
Re:Are we to believe by narcc · 2004-04-19 09:05 · Score: 1

This doesn't make any sence. Why would an "IT guy" know how to weld? or how to rebuild a transmission? Thats just silly.

I believe that you're confusing Knowlege with Intelligence. They are two very different things.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Are we to believe by cr0sh · 2004-04-19 11:41 · Score: 1

Modern engines rarely have carburetors or distributors, at least like they used to be. Instead, you have "throttle body" or "direct" fuel injection (with MAF sensors and numerous other junk), and "electronic ignitions" (which are technically computer-controlled, no-moving-parts distributors - but they are nothing like the geared moving blade design with dwell and points).
Some of the smartest and most knowledgable people I know are auto mechanics. Some of the most ignorant I know happen to be in IT, curiously enough...

--
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Re:Are we to believe by Rob+Parkhill · 2004-04-20 02:59 · Score: 1

A few years back, I took an automotive welding class at the local community college (my formal training is a BSc. in Computer Science). I was the only person in the class who was not taking the course for credit as part of a larger auto-body diploma.

Sadly, I got the highest mark in the class. Welding simply isn't that difficult or complicated (well, auto-body welding isn't... I don't pretend to know the intricacies of deep-sea under water welding or anything exotic like that.) It just takes some practice, and the right tools. Hell, I think I was probably the only person in the class who found the first 3 weeks of "theory" lectures interesting.

I really hope that the students taking the mechanics diploma were a lot brighter than the students in the auto-body class...

--
"Tomorrow's forecast: a few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" - Stewie Griffin

Re:$3000 headlights? by buckeyeguy · 2004-04-19 05:08 · Score: 1

In 1985 I had a headlight stolen off of my car... cost me about $9 to replace. The real pisser was that I had to replace the mounting bracket as well as the lamp itself.

$3000 for a headlight? Accck.

--
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.

That's not true! by cnelzie · 2004-04-19 05:08 · Score: 5, Funny

Just ask the Earth Liberation Front...

They found out, in the news, after they lit a Hummer Dealership on fire, that Hummers, ONLY when lit on fire, put out more pollutants then they EVER would through normal usage and eventual PROPER destruction at the end of their lives...

--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?

Re:That's not true! by fermion · 2004-04-19 09:18 · Score: 1

It could still be construed as a defensive move. There are uncounted number of families that are now safe in their midsize sedans. Not to mention the wildlife that won't be harrashed when insecure men and women want to play in the woods, but can't imagine actually exposing themselves to the elements.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black

Blame Patents - A libertarian lesson by argoff · 2004-04-19 05:16 · Score: 1

A big reason for no standardization in the auto industry is simple - it is patents. Basically, the auto industry is fragmenting for the same reason that the UNIX industry fragmented before Linux came along. Each tries to fork off their own proprietary special purpose design and technology to avoid having their products commoditized, and the intellectual property system helps them do it.

If there wern't patents, safety devices like air-bags and antilock breaks would have been in atuos 20 years earlier, and the big industries would tend to copy each other because they could. It would create pressure to standardize because nobody would want to be the odd-ball left out, and it would create a downard pressure on car prices, just like open interfaces do in the PC industry.

Another problem is regulation. The auto industry is far more vulnerable to it because it is not new like the PC industry, and has relied on government intervention for a long time. I can't tell you how many times I've seen auto companies push thru "pollution" and "safety" regulations - to try and increase the barriers to entry in the auto industry, but also push used cars out of the marketplace. Other things they've done are to put quotas or tarrifs on some foriegn made cars. When you do that it drives up the prices dramatcially to where it no longer makes sense to import a cheap reliable car, but rather a complicated one full of bells, whistles, and features.

Moral: Maybe I could call the right to piss in your yard a property right, maybe I could buy and sell shares of that right on the open market, maybe I could say noone has an incentive to piss without that kind of property right. Well that's what the problem is with copyrights and patents, as glorious as they sound, they are not rights nor free market, nor property rights - and this is one of the consequences.

Exactly by CarrionBird · 2004-04-19 05:16 · Score: 1

For everyday driving, anything less than a standard size pickup (like my F150, happens to be at just the right height) is too much of a pain, literally.

The big cars are ok too, but you still have to climb in and out of them, where I just sit down into the pickup. You probably do get slightly better mileage though.

--
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's

Re:Exactly by duffbeer703 · 2004-04-19 05:36 · Score: 1

Look at used, off-lease Cadillacs or Lincolns that are "certified" (which gives them a 100k warranty). Right now you can find a 2001 or 2000 Caddy with 40k miles for like $16-20k.

They are friggin comfy cars and ride better than most trucks.

The mileage usually doesn't matter too much to me. I commute like 10 miles... the cost savings for commuting in a truck or big car versus a tin can on wheels is like $200. Big whoop.

--
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK

Usually not the manufactures. by sideshow · 2004-04-19 05:18 · Score: 1

This also ties in with Ford (and other manufacturers?...) buying up junkyards to dry up the independent supply of repair parts.

Indepentent compainies are usually to blame for this one. What happens is that the manufacturer stops making the part then a few shops buy them all up. They can charge whatever they want since they are the one and only source.

--

Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

yep by bmajik · 2004-04-19 05:20 · Score: 1

nothing about cars has fundamentally changed in a long time. The trend has been to replace mechanical systems with electronic ones, and to make the electronic systems better by giving them more data to work with.. and finally to make them programmable and adaptable to give you precision and adaptability that mechanical systems could never acheive.

That said, some cars are pragmatically easier to work on than others. Owners of VAG products (VW, Audi, SEAT, Skoda) can purchase a VAG-COM which flawlessly emulates the VAS-1551 dealer service computer, with just a special cable and some windows softare.

BMW's on the other hand require the MODIC/DIS system which is horribly expensive (5 figures) and hard to come by. No shade-tree alternative exists.

Really though, the function of a car is the same as it was 10 or 100 years ago. For the engine to run, you need spark and you need fuel. The methods by which spark and fuel are delivered, timed, proportioned, etc have changed, but the fundamentals are the same. A carburetter was mechanical device that answered the question of "for this operating situation, how much gas do i need" ? Fuel injection answers the same question. Analog EFI answers the same question with resistor and cap "programming" (because the amount of fuel to deliver is a FUNCTION of multiple variables). Digital EFI answers the same question with actual code to interpolate the function's value based on data stored in the ROM. The "function" isn't defined as a function, but as an n-dimensional discrete map of the n inputs the EFI computer considers in making its desicion (air mass, load, etc). In other words, you have points along the RPM axis, points along the load axis, points along the air mass axis, etc. f(load, rpm, air mass) is calculated not by an actual evaluation, but as an interpolation based on looking at the stored defined values in that region of the space (4d, in this case).

On a carburettor you adjusted the jets to make sure the output function was appropriate for the inputs. On digital EFI you make sure that the inputs are appropriate (i.e. the temp sensor, the MAF, the TPS, etc).

These solid state compnents can be easily tested with a multi-meter, so you can quickly troubleshoot the list of sensors involved in the EFI system to determine which input is lying to the computer.

On modern cars its even easier, if you have the diagnostic tool (like a VAG-COM) - the diagnostics will often tell you which sensor is out of spec, and then you can troubleshoot the physical condition (sensor bad ? wire bad ?, etc)

--
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.

Funny... by lythander · 2004-04-19 05:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

As a sysadmin/netadmin/IT/MIS guy all of my career, I've always described my job as being not too much different from a mechanic, except I stay less clean and I apparently get paid less.

And working on my 1969 Baracuda is MUCH more fun lately. Maybe I should change jobs...

Re:Funny... by Civil_Disobedient · 2004-04-20 01:54 · Score: 1

And working on my 1969 Baracuda is MUCH more fun lately. Maybe I should change jobs...

You do realize that it's only fun because it's not a job, right?

What? Get my HANDS DIRTY? by DrDebug · 2004-04-19 05:25 · Score: 2, Funny

One of the reasons I studied computers and not 'shop' was because I *HATED* the idea of getting my hands dirty. I just couldn't handle that phobia. Yuk!

Now they are enlisting IT personnel to service AUTOMOBILES??

iiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

Re:I know this'll get flamed, but I can't help it. by langeland · 2004-04-19 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes, manufacturing, maintaining and selling cars is expensive. That is three issues. But you forgot to add the developing of new cars.

We (the consumers) demand cars with ever more advanced technologies installed. Those technologies don't just appear out of the air - they are developed just like any software are developed. Development costs! The car companies have to gain profit for this development overhead - and the scheduled maintinance checks seem right on target for that.

The big problem is bumpers by Animats · 2004-04-19 05:29 · Score: 5, Informative

For a few years in the 1980s, cars had to have good bumpers. Vehicles had to survive a 5MPH collision with very limited damage. The auto industry fought the 5MPH no-damage bumper standard hard. and it was reduced to 2.5MPH and weakened in other ways under Republican administrations.

Then came "integrated bumpers" and "bumperless cars". Those things can be totalled at very low speeds. Damages in minor collisions soared.

Here's the Institute for Highway Safety on the "$3000 light replacement" issue. They write: "The Institute's continuing series of 5 mph bumper tests show that today's flimsy bumpers can result in substantial and expensive damage to vehicle lighting systems. For example, in March of this year the Institute released results of front-into-angle-barrier tests of several new models. In the tests, the housings for the headlights on both the Acura RL and Infiniti Q45 broke and had to be replaced. Largely because of the cost of the headlamp assembly, the damage to the Q45 in the angle-barrier impact totaled $2,661." That's probably the source of the "$3000" figure.

The lack of a tough bumper standard coupled with the crashworthyness requirement means that the car's crumple zones crumple in minor collisions. Hence the big repair bills.

Re:The big problem is bumpers by rewt66 · 2004-04-19 07:35 · Score: 1

Hence the big repair bills.
But also, if I understand correctly, lower hospital bills. Which would you rather pay?
Re:The big problem is bumpers by Animats · 2004-04-19 07:56 · Score: 2

There's no safety conflict between better bumpers and safety. It's a minor cost issue; better bumpers added about $21 per car in the 1980s. But repair parts are a big profit center for car makers, so they want body parts to break.
There's something of a styling issue. Useful bumpers need to extend a bit beyond the vehicle, which some stylists don't like. There's also the bumper height problem. Bumper heights are standardized for US cars, but not for SUVs and light trucks. This is a big "compatibility" problem.
Re:The big problem is bumpers by DigiShaman · 2004-04-19 10:42 · Score: 1

You are correct about the height difference in bumpers between SUVs and cars. But, the main reason for integrated bumpers has to do with crumple zones. Because of the nasty rates of health insurance, it's better to have a car absorb the kinetic energy rather than your spine. Unless of course, you don't mind having your body experience the sharp jolt in energy at the expense of keeping your car. You gotta love those blood sucking lawyers! Sue sue sue is the name of the game now. (Sad but true)

I'm curious though. Why not have shock absorbers mounted in the front and rear of the frame? This would kill two birds with one stone; minimal auto damage and less shock to your body on impact.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:The big problem is bumpers by ChrisMaple · 2004-04-19 10:55 · Score: 1

Why not have shock absorbers mounted in the front and rear of the frame?
I believe this was done for a while in the 5 MPH bumper period. Heavy and expensive.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:The big problem is bumpers by boots@work · 2004-04-19 11:30 · Score: 1

Some people suggest that softer bumpers reduce damage to pedestrians. 5-10mph probably won't hurt the occupants, but it's pretty tough on a pedestrian.
Re:The big problem is bumpers by Animats · 2004-04-19 13:18 · Score: 1

"Heavy and expensive"? Well, see the first linked item. Additional cost: $24 per car. Additional weight: 13 pounds per car. 1983 dollars.

Not true by trailerparkcassanova · 2004-04-19 05:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

The Hummer emits way more CO2.

Re:Not true by iminplaya · 2004-04-19 06:32 · Score: 1

It also produces more OOOOHHH's and AAAAHHH's.

--
What?
Re:Not true by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 06:39 · Score: 1, Funny

It also produces more OOOOHHH's and AAAAHHH's.
You've confused the Hummer with a hummer.
Re:Not true by ckaminski · 2004-04-19 09:40 · Score: 1

No, I think you're confusing a hummer IN a Hummer. :-)

Body damage by mozingod · 2004-04-19 05:32 · Score: 1

I got in a small ~10mph fender bender in my '01 Transam WS6, and with only body damage it cost $5500 for repairs. $2000 for the hood alone.

Damn carbon-fiber body parts...

Just curious by akintayo · 2004-04-19 05:33 · Score: 1

How is it no one sees the obvious benefits of medical outsourcing ? I am amused that people can see this as a bad thing. Aside from driving the cost of medical treatment down, it also removes geographic barriers.

If a guy in India can analyse X-rays for a tenth of the cost, maybe someone in Trinidad can afford that second opinion that will save their life.

--
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton

Model T by MacFury · 2004-04-19 05:33 · Score: 1

We all do. Because cars with more advanced engine controll computers will get better gas milage and pollute less

I find it funny that the Ford Model T got 25 mpg. Sure, it was a 2 cylinder engine and didn't go all that fast...but you would think by now we'd have much better fuel efficiency. :-)

Re:Model T by Carnildo · 2004-04-19 06:22 · Score: 1

These days, an equivalent car, with an equivalent engine, would probably get around 50-75mpg. And no-one, outside a small enthusiast community, would buy one.

--
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.

GM Hywire by MacFury · 2004-04-19 05:37 · Score: 1

What we need is user-interchangable chasis, engine, drive train, cab. That'd be cool.

GM is attempting something like this with their hydrogen cars. It's a bit far off, but looks promising. You could keep the same chasis and engine for 10 years, and swap up differing cabs if you get bored with your current one.

I want a return to the Model T ubiquity.

Re:GM Hywire by moreati · 2004-04-19 06:26 · Score: 1

Exactly, the reason there is no such thing as a Personal Car platform is the Internal Combustion Engine forces all the power transfer to be mechanical. So for any hope of a lightweight & efficient car, the steering, transmission, weight distribution, Air Conditioning, brakes, engine block etc have to be tightly coupled & completly unmodular. Their dimensions & relative positions are fixed & inflexible, the chassis is necessarily bespoke for that model.

PCs can be made in any shape from a cardboard software box to a rack mount case, using only off the shelf standardised components - because the coupling between them is loose.

The HyWire is drive by wire - control and power are carried electrically, hence parts are loosely coupled. This means items can be interchangeable, with only the power unit being constant across designs. It also makes car autopilots simpler to develop (no need to add servos or actuators).

HyWire is definately something to watch.

Ahh the 87 Suzuki Samuri by panxerox · 2004-04-19 05:40 · Score: 1

no part (including the engine) to heavy to lift with 1 person.

--
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler

cars arhave always been disposable by GoldenBB · 2004-04-19 05:47 · Score: 1

I don't know what you folks are talking about--cars have always been disposable. Ever visit a junkyard? Those are disposed of cars.

Cars are among the most recycled products--usable parts are salvaged, then the cars are crushed and the steel is reused. The process could be improved through better design.

A lot of people still want to be able to work on their cars themselves. The cost of having work done can break you, but the cost of most parts is still reasonable. What I want is a car that is *easy* to work on--one with the oil filter that is reachable without having to do inhuman contortions. Automakers should focus on making their wares affordable for the life of the vehicle, not just until the warranty expires.

Airbags required by law? by pen · 2004-04-19 05:48 · Score: 1

Is it legal to just take the airbags out and drive without them? I feel safe in my car without an airbag as long as I'm using my seatbelt... I don't see why that would be any different in a newer car.

If it's legal, I can see a new market coming into existence for airbag-less cars at a discount.

Re:Airbags required by law? by b0s0z0ku · 2004-04-19 07:46 · Score: 1

Is it legal to just take the airbags out and drive without them?
Yes, in most states (all except the People's Theocracy of Utah IIRC). The only airbags that are required by Federal law are the two front airbags. Even they can be removed, because Federal safety standards only govern what can be sold new or done by mechanics, not what the owner does to his/her car once he buys it.
You'll have to remove the airbags yourself, though, because it is illegal for a mechanic to do so without a waiver from the NHTSA allowing him to. Be careful! - airbags can be dangerous and explode with great force when removed. You can find instructions on how to remove the bags on the 'net - just google or search groups.google.com.
The one caveat is that if you sell your car and someone gets hurt in a crash, you might be sued. IANAL, but you might want to either reinstall the airbags before sale, or inform the buyer in writing of the potential risks.
-b0s0z0ku
Re:Airbags required by law? by pen · 2004-04-19 09:12 · Score: 1

I'm not talking about removing airbags that are still good. I'm talking about removing exploded airbags and not replacing them. (Buying the car for myself.)

IT Career Change by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 05:50 · Score: 1, Interesting

Automotive technicians held about 818,000 jobs in 2002, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. That figure is expected to increase by 10 to 20 percent annually.

"There's no shortage of general technicians, but there is a big shortage of qualified people to work on drivability and emissions issues," says Robert Rodriguez of Automotive Service Excellence. The Leesburg, Va., organization certifies repair shops and technicians.

These specialist technicians need advanced reading, problem-solving, and basic electronics skills, he says. "The best people to find are those who have worked in the IT [information technology] industry," he says.

Re:... I have a Passat too. by dasmegabyte · 2004-04-19 05:52 · Score: 1

not only is the quality CRAP, the design is CRAP!

I disagree with that. The quality is about average for a mid-sized sedan(mostly electrical demons, 2/3 of that car is heavily overengineered and you'll never hear about them), better than most US cars and the design is above average as well. After 105k, my suspension and handling are nearly as tight as when I bought it and engine output hasn't dropped a whit.

I would say that often VW dealers are crap. I had EXACTLY the same problem, and replaced it (without replacing anti-theft, can't believe you fell for that) for about $3.50 at radio shack.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju

Solution - cabs and rented cars by AttilaSz · 2004-04-19 05:57 · Score: 1

I'm in the unfortunate situation that I totalled my 6-years old Toyota Carina E last week. I loved that car and didn't intend on parting with it, but the accident crossed my plans. Unfortunately, the repair would have costed more than the current market value of the car - almost half of the cost attributable to a new pair of airbags.

Anyway, this forced me to analyze my typical car usage, and I found out that in my particular case, I'm better off if I use cabs and rent a car occasionally. I work from home. I go shopping once a week, and visit friends one-two times a week. Cabs are perfect for these purposes. I'm going on a longer trip over weekends once or twice a month, and once a year on a two-week vacation. Renting a car is perfect for this purpose.

I save myself from paying interest on a loan for the new car (or losing interest on money I can't invest since I have to spend it on a car - same thing), I don't have to pay insurance, and I needn't worry about repairs.

The whole idea is still fresh, and I wonder how will it work out, but for now it looks like it'll provide me with near equal comfort as owning a car, and I expect it to be less expensive in long run.

--
Sig erased via substitution of an identical one.

Re:Solution - cabs and rented cars by cr0sh · 2004-04-19 11:30 · Score: 1

If you can afford it, look into buying a used car off of someone (not a dealer). Look into an older model carbureted engine vehicle, then spend money to convert the system to propane (generally a DOT-approved tank, hoses/pipes for the fuel, and the ports on the carb need to be widened). Under $5000 if you shop right.
I will never buy a car from a dealer again, unless it being sold salvage or scrap. Knowing how to work on vehicles is a plus (as well as having the tools to do so). The longer I can keep my vehicles going after they are paid off, the more money is in my pocket (that I can stick in savings and earn interest on). Really, the repairs of most older vehicles is way less than what it would cost to buy the car new (if you have it paid for, that is).
So, get a beater car for those times when you really need one (not too beater - something that has acceptable milage and runs well - an old Honda or something like that), use those other forms of transportation when you don't. If you do get a vehicle for occasional use, it would probably be best to get a small truck (an old Toyota or Mazda) - that way you can haul stuff when you need to.

--
Reason is the Path to God - Anon

What we really need by danharan · 2004-04-19 05:58 · Score: 1

Are cars you lease rather than buy.

Some of this exists already, but the big car makers have to bring this to its logical conclusion.

If car makers have to pay for maintenance and disposal costs, they will be given an incentive to build the cars so they will be durable. Parts likely wouldn't break down as often, and would be easily replaced, just like you can change RAM on your box. And the whole thing will have to be recyclable.

Or we could simply go with a ten-year-old idea, the Hypercar. (more info)

--
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"

My car just needed a new lamda probe by Rogerborg · 2004-04-19 06:00 · Score: 2, Funny

I tried whipping it with a buggy whip, but no, the shop computer still insisted that it needed a new lamda probe. I have stripped a car down to a pile of nuts and bolts and rebuilt it in a different shape, but I do not know what a lamda probe is, nor why I should need one. That makes me sad.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

Labor cost is bad, but the parts cost is worse by ricochet_ca · 2004-04-19 06:00 · Score: 1

Certainly, labor costs are a problem, but I think that the costs of the parts is a bigger problem that won't get solved any time soon.

Take the BMW example in the article. The car cost $30k new, so the damage must have been $16 at least. Say that all six airbags went off, and using the numbers in the story ($1k per bag, and "even more" for the sensors -- call it $1.25k), the labor costs were around $13.5k. That's astronomical, to be sure, and it's the number that gets your attention. But look at the parts...these figures mean that the cost of the airbags & sensors is $2,500 or so.

That may not seem like a lot, but think about it. If you figure that transportation costs, dealer profit eat up $1,000 of the car's price (it's coming from Germany, after all), that means that the airbags come out to around 8.6% of the car's total value. Does anybody really believe that the airbag system cost BMW that much? Of course not, I'm sure they spent less than a fourth of that. This highly profitable parts market is one of the reasons that I can lease that $30k BMW for $299 a month.

The invisible hand of the market may be able to fix the labor problem, but it can't directly address the parts problem because this information isn't generally known. Maybe articles like this one will cause people to take a harder look at the real cost of owning different cars when they are shopping for new ones.

Time to find a new dealer by Superfreak · 2004-04-19 06:01 · Score: 1

I work for a new car dealer...and last week we had a 1926 (may have been 28 - can't remember) Oldsmobile in....we worked on it. And we're not even an Olds dealer. Sounds like your Ford dealer has too much money & doesn't want to risk earning more by serving the customer.

Not it's not a bunhc of horse shit by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-19 06:03 · Score: 2, Informative

The first big thing to make it hard to work on modern cars was the ECU. Code readers came out as a result. It's true that you can't get the really cool codes out of the computer without knowing all the manufacturer-specific information, like the position of mode doors, the values of sensors, and so on. However, the documentation still tells you how to go about testing all that stuff with nothing more complicated than a DVOM.

The reality is that cars are becoming harder to work on.

The problem is all to do with the computers.

Manufacturers are deliberately making it harder and hard to get diagnostic information from your car.

Let's contrast my old '87 Buick LeSabre, vs. my GF's 98 Toyota Tercel:
-On the Buick, if I want to read the trouble codes, I need a paperclip. That's it. That will let me access ALL the trouble codes. Clearing them is as simple as disconnecting the battery/removing a fuse.
-On the Tercel, I can't get the trouble codes until I buy a $150 code reader. Even then this code reader only gives me a faction of the functionality that it should. OBDII was designed for gov't emissions testing. In order to clear trouble codes you MUST have a reader, and your car will not pass inspection if it has uncleared codes.

Basically, here's my rant about OBDII:

There are too many interfaces, and they did not pick interfaces that were already industry standards. If they'd chose RS-232, code readers would be $100 less.
There's no requirement to blink trouble codes on the MIL (Malfunction Indicator Light). This can save you a lot of time and/or money.
ODBII requires manufactures to make only a tiny subset of the diagnostic information availible. It's bullshit. There's no way for you to do something like bleed the ABS system, for example.
You MUST have a $150+ reader to reset the codes.

Here's an example:
My GF's MIL comes on. We call around and find out that any shop is going to want $70 just to look at it. So I'm pretty much forced to buy a reader.
The trouble codes indicate a misfire. I replace a $5 set of spark plugs, problem fixed.

A problem that would have cost me $5 to fix on the Buick, cost me $155 on a newer car.

Now look, I'm willing to shell out $150 for a reader, but I want it do be able to do more than I can do on an older car with just a paper clip.
The way it's set up right now, $150 gets you your trouble codes, but if you want any of the things that you SHOULD be able to get with a computer interface (like TPS sensor status) you need to buy ANOTHER special purpose computer (if you lucky and it's even avaible for you model) or spend the value of the car itself on a computer.

The solution to all this BS is pretty simple:
No dealer-only diagnostics
Any non-engineering computer interfaces must meet a federal standard, and any deviations from this standard must be disclosed.

Right now I could build a car and cryptographically block you from doing anything but basic ODBII functions. If you want to do something as simple as bleed your brakes you MUST pay a dealer or you will not be able to properly bleed the ABS unit. Then it's both a market manipulation issue and a safety issue.

--
Life is too short to proofread.

I love how hypocritical we are about the enviromnt by arfonrg · 2004-04-19 06:05 · Score: 1

We Americans are always spouting about how this and that should be done to "save the enviroment". We need new laws, we need to make this illegal, we need to recycle, blah blah blah.

In reality, cars pollute the enviroment MOST when they are made. Think about all the chemicals released when all those plastics are made and molded. Same with the paints, fluids and metal forming. A 1960's fume belcher does not cause as much pollution as one new Prius (sp?) being made.
The second most polluting time in a car's life is when it's scrapped.

This is true for MOST of the hardware products we buy yet, we always buy the disposable stuff and toss it when it acts up.

IF we REALLY cared about the enviroment, we'd demand products that were easily repairable that we could keep along time.

Hardware (like TVs) should be made so that modules could be upgraded (like generic computers). If you want stero sound, upgrade the sound card... If you want LCD, upgrade the tube module. Etcetera.

I'm thinking that the car (and other manufacturers) are purposely making cars too hard to fix in the hopes that people will just buy a new one. I'm sure it's a fine line between pissing off their customer with repair costs and encouraging them to buy a new car.

Just my 2cents.

--
Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll

Re:Don't change jobs yet..The cheapening of labour by blitziod · 2004-04-19 06:05 · Score: 1

well my dad works at a saab dealership. He is not a mechanic, but heads a dept ( they have more than one dealership it is a chain). He was talking about how hard it is to find good service people to work there. The punch line is they pay them a BASE salary of 52k per year + lots of overtime, great insurance and a chance to advance. The service manager at a dealership makes like 100k per year. None of them have to own a suit, stay in a hotel for work,or pay back expensice student loans for grad school.

--
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!

same in many businesses by KalvinB · 2004-04-19 06:07 · Score: 1

I was talking to one of the guys at my ISP and he was telling me that most of the people running such businesses don't have degrees. They don't need them. They taught themselves.

The computer industry is changing so rapidly that your compsci degree is obsolete right after you get your diploma. There's nothing you learn in Computer Science that you can't teach yourself.

And if you can't teach yourself, then you shouldn't be doing computer science because you're constantly learning with nothing more than books to teach you. I havn't even finished Linear Algebra yet and I'm writting a very advanced statistics tool. In some respects, I'm actually ahead of my college education.

Some industries like the auto industry just change at a slower pace. No matter what industry you're in, if you don't have the ability to teach yourself, you'll become obsolete along with the things you used to fix.

If you want to be successful you need to find what you really want to do early on and focus on getting part time jobs that deal directly with your desired profession. You get paid to be educated. And then once the time comes to go to college you can deside whether or not you really need to spend the money or if you're already in a position to keep moving up in the field.

Personally I wouldn't give up college. It's expensive but the social aspect of it is very nice. And it's structured which is good for learning how to organize time and whatnot.

Ben

--
Work Safe Porn

Re:same in many businesses by Dirk+Pitt · 2004-04-19 06:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

your compsci degree is obsolete right after you get your diploma
This is so popular to say, but I totally disagree. Calculus doesn't change. Data Structures doesn't change. Formal Languages doesn't change. The fundamentals of good software design do not change.
There's nothing you learn in Computer Science that you can't teach yourself.
Oh, I agree with that -- same with nuclear engineering, accounting, writing, and musical performance. So what? Many people go to school because it gives them a head start in their chosen career. Many employers will throw out your resume without a degree. Most people want to be an 'employee' for a while before they become an 'employer'. Ergo, get a degree. The smartest, though, go to school so they can saturate themselves in an environment of their choice, to study with the brightest people in their field. You can't get that by locking yourself in your bedroom with 'MySQL for Dummies'. An architect or artist gets critiqued a thousand times for their work before they're paid to design their first building or play their first concert. Why should a software project or IT infrastructure be any different?
he was telling me that most of the people running such businesses don't have degrees
Yep, I too know a lot of uneducated IT people making big money doing mediocre work. If that makes you happy, by all means -- but I'm glad to see that you're not giving up college. There's more there than you're giving it credit for, or you're going to the wrong uni.
Re:same in many businesses by Civil_Disobedient · 2004-04-20 01:24 · Score: 1

The smartest, though, go to school so they can saturate themselves in an environment of their choice, to study with the brightest people in their field.

People learn differently. Some like reading, lectures, tests and a more formal type of learning. Others, like myself, are more hands-on. I spent four years at college basically teaching myself -- the classes were for the most part a waste of time. It was nice to have the formal, structured routine to make me do the work, but I would much rather have four years of working at a company with people who are involved with problem-solving on a day-to-day basis. That's how I learn best.

The "best and brightest" at university are, more often than not, relegated to graduate level classes.

IT Mechanics by kyoko21 · 2004-04-19 06:08 · Score: 1

IT Mechanics = Plumbers of the 21st centuries.
$150/hour of work... hahaha :-)

Special deals, I'll throw in a 4-port Linksys switch for free.

Depends on the vehicle by phorm · 2004-04-19 06:12 · Score: 1

Again, depends on the vehicle. '91 Accord, rear drum brakes were actually quite easy to service. Front discs/rotors are a pain in the butt, mainly due to the fact that the bolts must be accessed from towards the inside, requiring that the steering knuckle etc be first removed for access.

The rears, a few springs and a bolt or two, you're good. There's a little tensioning bolt that can be accessed once the brakes are on to adjust the distance between the pad/drum.

I do remember that my previous car (Toyota) was a lot simpler on front discs though, no pulling a bunch of extra crap off apart to get at the rotors.

Re:Haha netcarz.com I love it! by blitziod · 2004-04-19 06:13 · Score: 1

there are currntly car share services you can subscribe to. I saw an interview with people who did it. If they had it in houston, i might keep my truck and subscribe to one instead of trading in. for a 2 car family it makes GREAT sense to use a share service and just own one car.

--
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!

How much energy does recycling a car take? by BigBlockMopar · 2004-04-19 06:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Aside from the power used, it's a cyclic process with minimal wastage. The rubber, plastic, metal can be reused for whatever purpose necessary. It has to be economically viable if these companies are willing to lay out so much green for these 'car eaters'.

Wow.... Uhhh, yeah. So you've got a Honda Civic or some other piece of junk which only lasts 7 years. You crush it, transport it, shred it, smelt it, transport the ingot, re-melt for cold rolling, roll it, stamp it, weld the stampings back together, paint it, and sell it as a new car.

Okay... Why don't you try looking up the specific heat of iron and the energy content of coal. Sit back and tell me how many tons of coal you have to burn each time you melt an equivalent quantity of iron and steel to a car.

It's horrifically wasteful and terrible for the environment. In fact, you'd have to drive a poorly-tuned old gas guzzler for 22 years (on top of its regular lifespan) to make up the environmental damage caused by recycling it.

Buy a good and *durable* car that is easy to work on - not some Japanese tinfoil crap. Wash it and wax it every week. Change the oil every 4,000km or three months. Keep the engine tuned up, and when it needs rings and bearings, do it. And drive the thing for as long as you can - I'm thinking 40+ years. The newer more environmentally-"friendly" cars aren't.

My automotive stable includes a 1970 Dodge Dart with a Slant-6. Fits my 6'4" tall body comfortably, starts every morning with the legendary Chrysler gear-reduction "dive bomber" starter motor and a satisfying click-click-click of the solid lifters, gets 28MPG and blows as clean on the emissions test as a 1990-spec. And forget the $3000 HID headlights; mine are $4.99 each at Wal*Mart.

Can't buy a new car like that these days.

--
Fire and Meat. Yummy.

Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by NighthawkFoo · 2004-04-19 06:48 · Score: 3, Funny

When the world ends, the only things left afterwards will be cockaroaches and the Mopar Slant-6.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by Kiryat+Malachi · 2004-04-19 06:52 · Score: 1

What if my new Civic runs 1 million miles?

I mean, I had an 85 Civic that ran 250,000 no problem, why shouldn't a new one, better engineered, run longer?

I say buy a car and drive it into the ground. Old cars aren't necessarily better, and are often worse.

I have a new Mazda now, because I needed something that would reliably do the 40 miles a day I needed to drive. 20 years from now, I hope to have the same exact Mazda.

But I have no desire to work on my own car. Why should I? I work on automotive electronics for a living; I have other hobbies. That's why I make money - to pay for necessities, and after necessities, to pay other people to do things I need to do that I don't want to do.

--

---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by saden1 · 2004-04-19 07:00 · Score: 1

Buy a good and *durable* car that is easy to work on - not some Japanese tinfoil crap.

You need to check your facts or at least give us hints as to which car manufacturers dont produce  tinfoil crap.

--

-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 07:11 · Score: 5, Informative

Am I seeing things? A post which talks about how Dodges are reliable, and Honda Civics only last 7 years, is marked at +5 Insightful???
Anybody with *any* experience with Chrysler products, or Honda Civics, would moderate this as a troll, or perhaps humorous. There's a reason that Consumer Reports (among others) gives top ratings to Honda, and low-end ratings to anything Dodge. And I can assure you that Honda Civics last a *lot* longer than 7 years, and you don't even have to change the oil every 2,500 miles. Perhaps in the late 70's what you're saying is true, but now Civics are the most reliable cars on the road.
The idea of being a car snob over a Dodge is absurd. I owned one before, and I wouldn't wish one upon my worst enemy.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by SnappleMaster · 2004-04-19 07:40 · Score: 4, Informative

"Japanese tinfoil crap"

Wow, biased much? No offense but I (and a ton of other people) would prefer to own some fine Japanese tinfoil, any day. Americans have produced some decent cars, but overall... suckage. IMHO of course.

Honda CR-V. 5 years old, 45k miles, good as new, seriously very close to mint condition. Check the resale value if you like.

Also, I wouldn't wax your car every week unless you're talking about automatic carwash wax. Waste of time, waste of wax.

--
Be happy. Nothing else matters.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by GreyPoopon · 2004-04-19 07:46 · Score: 3, Funny

When the world ends, the only things left afterwards will be cockaroaches and the Mopar Slant-6.
Don't forget...Hostess Twinkies. After all, the cockroaches need something to eat while driving around.

--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by Blimey85 · 2004-04-19 08:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think you missed a key bit of info. The parent was not talking about a newer Dodge but one from back when cars were built to last. What you say is true about modern Dodges being heaps o' shite. But back in the day...

--
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by z123z · 2004-04-19 08:16 · Score: 1

I had a 1965 Dart with the slant 6, and drove it past 100k. Then I gave it to a friend for a wedding present and his wife was still driving it a few years later. My mom, however, bought a 1967 Dart that never was quite as reliable. She traded it in after just a few years. Now I have a Toyota and a Honda and have had zero trouble with either. OK, I had a flat tire on the Toyota, but that's it.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by theCobolGuy · 2004-04-19 08:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have a 1991 Honda Civic hatchback. It is manual transmission and does not have air bags or an installed stereo/radio; I use a Walkman hooked to the speakers that came with my now-an-only-for-parts doorstop 486. Now that I don't date anymore, I never use the air conditioner. I coast a lot when driving and I get over 40 mpg; I keep an Excel spreadsheet on my mileage.

I take it to the Honda dealer every couple of months and tell them I need an oil change and whatever else they find. Whatever they find I have them fix immediately. The car cost me $10,000 and I paid cash for it at the end of that model year. Except for dead batteries, which have always occurred at home on a day off from work, the car has never given me any trouble. It only has about 77,000 miles (I take public transportation a lot) on it and the Honda dealer is pleading with me to trade it in so they can get a well maintained used car. I am going to keep it until the wheels fall off.

I should have treated my last girlfriend as well as I baby that car.

--
Swedish Meatball
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by Cromac · 2004-04-19 08:44 · Score: 1

I mean, I had an 85 Civic that ran 250,000 no problem, why shouldn't a new one, better engineered, run longer?
Maybe they aren't engineered to run longer just better over their intended lifespan and maybe that lifespan is designed to be shorter. Think about it, Honda makes money selling new cars. While a reputation for having cars that run for a 250,000 miles sounds good the longer their cars run the fewer of them you need to buy.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 08:47 · Score: 1, Funny

IMHO americans stopped making good cars around 1975-1979 and have preceded to make crap ever sence. but thats just my opinion....
Americans build Hondas, Mexicans build Chevys, Canadians build some Fords. Looks like AMERICANS are still building the best cars. :)
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by Kiryat+Malachi · 2004-04-19 08:57 · Score: 1

I work for a parts supplier.

I've watched the spec for "X% of part must survive X miles, X years" increase over time. Last one I worked on was 99.99966% of part must survive 15 years, 150000 miles. That's 4 parts out of 1 million failing.

They're being engineered to run longer, at least at the individual module level.

--

---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-19 09:28 · Score: 2, Informative

Am I seeing things? A post which talks about how Dodges are reliable, and Honda Civics only last 7 years, is marked at +5 Insightful??? Anybody with *any* experience with Chrysler products, or Honda Civics, would moderate this as a troll, or perhaps humorous. There's a reason that Consumer Reports (among others) gives top ratings to Honda, and low-end ratings to anything Dodge.

You cleary know nothing about cars.

The car he was talking about had a slant-6 engine in it. Those are one of the most reliable engines EVER MADE. Try looking something up instead of talking out your ass.

Perhaps in the late 70's what you're saying is true, but now Civics are the most reliable cars on the road.

Hondas are over-rated. I'd take a GM 3800 V-6 (good for 300,000+ miles) over a Honda engine any day.

The idea of being a car snob over a Dodge is absurd. I owned one before, and I wouldn't wish one upon my worst enemy.

Well it certainly wasn't a Viper then. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the specfic model of car you purchase matters and THAT's why they cost different prices?

If you buy a cheap POS from ANY company you're getting a cheap POS. I've worked on old Civics, they're nothing impressive, especially when they leave your gf stuck on the other side of the country.

It always amazes me that people think their car will never break because it has an "H" on the hood. The trick to getting a good car is to research that specfic model and that specfic car. You couldn't give me a Dodge Neon, but I'd take a Buick LeSabre over a Honda Accord.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 09:38 · Score: 1, Funny

Absolute bullshit.

I own a Porsche as well as a '69 Dodge Polara.

Granted, driving the Dodge is more like driving a spaceship (set the vector then burn), but Eleanor starts every damn morning, and Helga runs whenever she feels like it.

It takes a Mopar to catch a Mopar. You really can't beat 'Merkin steel designed when we were putting humans on the moon.

Bite my shiny (well, primered) metal ass. And don't even tread on the flight I took in a B17 yesterday. I wish there were more than 4 160 mph ragtops still in the sky; Oh, right. We burned those up saving Europe's ass...
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-19 09:59 · Score: 1

Honda CR-V. 5 years old, 45k miles, good as new, seriously very close to mint condition. Check the resale value if you like.

So you bought a poser SUV with an artificially high resale value.

If you actually tried to take it offroad it would break.

An American Jeep Wrangler would embarass the crap out of you if you ever did go offroad.

Wow, biased much? No offense but I (and a ton of other people) would prefer to own some fine Japanese tinfoil, any day. Americans have produced some decent cars, but overall... suckage. IMHO of course.

Any your opinion clearly isn't an informed one. Tell a Jeep Wrangler owner what you think of his car and try playing follow-the-leader.

It amazes me that you'll call this guy biased when you bought the crap-fest Honda CR-V as opposed to the better-priced, Wrangler. If you compare the two objectively, the Jeep is just plain better.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by SnappleMaster · 2004-04-19 10:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

A poser SUV? What the fuck do you call a Cadillac SUV then, or 99% of the other SUVs on the market? At least if I took my CR-V offroad and broke it I could replace it without breaking the bank! And WTF is "artificially high resale value"? Is that what someone with a car with crappy resale value says to refute the fact that their car ages like crap?

Anyways, IMHO in general an SUV is not an offroad vehicle. It's a yuppie-mobile. The CR-V is an economical family car. For us it's a solid, comfortable grocery getter with more cargo space than our 2 seater for long trips. That's it. All we want is something that drives, holds value well (relatively), is comfortable, reliable, and gets the job done.

The Wrangler solves a different problem. I'm sure it's a way better off-road vehicle. But who cares? Look around, you idiot. 99.99% of the people who are buying SUVs today will NEVER take them offroad, unless you count that big gravel patch in the Safeway parking lot offroad.

--
Be happy. Nothing else matters.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by BigBlockMopar · 2004-04-19 10:27 · Score: 1

When the world ends, the only things left afterwards will be cockaroaches and the Mopar Slant-6.
Well, ya gotta also remember McDonalds uniforms.

--
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by BigBlockMopar · 2004-04-19 10:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

I mean, I had an 85 Civic that ran 250,000 no problem, why shouldn't a new one, better engineered, run longer?
Better engineered to last a specific amount of time. Better engineered to be reliable and consistent.

Typically, when the CV joints start to rattle, scrap the car and buy a new one - the Japanese are great at making the car work consistently and flawlessly until they get to that mileage. Once they're there, CV joints wear, alternator dies, valve stems are loose, balljoints aren't going to pass a safety inspection, etc.
Old cars aren't necessarily better, and are often worse.
That's BS. The manufacturing of older cars is frequently worse - manufacturing tolerances and stuff were greater.

But the design, while simpler, is usually leaps and bounds better with inherent tolerance for, well, tolerances!

CAD, finite element analysis and scientific calculators which hold ten decimal places are responsible for this. In the old days, with a sliderule handling 2 or 3 significant figures, you'd round up forces and round down material strengths. The net result was that it was a lot stronger than it needed to be! Also, with design allowances for wider production line tolerances, the finished product continued to perform well despite normal wear.

On top of that, engine bay space wasn't at the premium it is now. Everything is easy to get at, to check it or to fix it, using common hand tools. This brings down maintenance and repair costs and serves to lengthen the vehicle's lifespan. Compare that to the alternator that I just replaced on a friend's 1993 Civic.... (never done an alternator in a Civic? Try it sometime.)

--
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by winwar · 2004-04-19 10:37 · Score: 1

Obviously someone hasn't looked up the figures?

I seem to have a paper right here in front of me with some useful information. A bit redundant since I have posted it elsewhere but oh well...

To summarize. Car use accounts for approx. 84% of the energy expended in the life cycle of a car. Recycling itself (crushing) is insignificant. Material production and manufacturing is about 14%.

Oh, and btw, 1990-spec emissions are now 14 years out of date. So meeting them isn't too impressive.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by BigBlockMopar · 2004-04-19 10:43 · Score: 1

You need to check your facts or at least give us hints as to which car manufacturers don't produce " tinfoil crap."
Unfortunately, due to market pressures (fuel efficiency requirements, cost reductions by using thinner gauges of steel and other material reduction, performance increases due to lighter curb weight), I can't think of too many.

I'd consider anything full-frame, RWD, American made: Caprice Classic, Crown Victoria, pickup trucks without silly crap like power windows and carpets.

Also, consider a V6 Mustang. They're designed for the output of the V8, with some room to spare for performance mods, and I would suspect that the torsional loads on the body (which contribute massively to paint cracking and metal fatigue) would be substantially minimalized with the V6. As for the V6 drivetrain itself, I dunno.... if they're still offering the 3.8L V6 with the AOD automatic (or a good manual), I'd take that, coupled to the Ford 8.8" rear axle. Though, if you get the V8, treat it well and hang onto it for a long time, you might even find that it appreciates in value (20 years +).

--
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by thadeusg · 2004-04-19 11:03 · Score: 1

Hondas are over-rated. I'd take a GM 3800 V-6 (good for 300,000+ miles) over a Honda engine any day.

HELL YES!

Now, comming from someone who HATES GM WITH A F'IN PASSION:

That old beast of a v6 was one durable engine. Mine ran like hell for 3 years (already had 180k+ logged on the odometer when I bought the car for $300) with hardly any attention paid to it..changed the oil maybe once or twice...overheated it like mad for a few MONTHS due to a radiator leak (finally killed it one day of course)...try that in your little B16A! The first time you drive more than 1 mile with a bad thermostat, bye bye head gasket! Head warped much? Haha.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by cyril3 · 2004-04-19 11:04 · Score: 1

Can't buy a new car like that these days.
No. Mainly because you won't sell it.
And I wouldn't want to anyway. If I was going to spend that much time on my transport I'd buy a horse.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by kayen_telva · 2004-04-19 11:08 · Score: 1

Totally offtopic:

S. G. Tallentyre is the pen name for Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by BigBlockMopar · 2004-04-19 11:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

A poser SUV? What the fuck do you call a Cadillac SUV then, or 99% of the other SUVs on the market?
Silly SUVs. But at least they tend to be real solid-axle 4x4 vehicles, built on pickup truck frames, with that stupid plush station wagon body dropped on top.

Don't even try to compare a CR-V or a Toyota Rectal Assault Vehicle with a real 4x4, even if it does have silly leather seats and carpets. A Lincoln Navigator could easily back over you in a parking lot, if his transfer case was set to 4WL.
At least if I took my CR-V offroad and broke it I could replace it without breaking the bank!
Yup... But you'd be a lot less likely to break the Cadillac Escalade, Lincoln Navigaton, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, Durango, Suburban, whatever.

Stand behind your CR-V and look at the rear axle sometime. Tell me, based on the width of the differential in there, exactly how much steel you think is in those gears? Oh, what's that, there aren't even gears in there? Well, I rest my case, then. And I'm quite secure in the knowledge that I could point my two wheel drive 1970 Dodge Dart down that little logging path, following the SUVs, and make it a hell of a lot further than your cute little 4WD or AWD setup.

(Please don't try to teach me about off-road driving. It really won't work. For one thing, I live in Ottawa, Canada - we get *lots* of snow. For another thing, I'm frequently in the bush, scavening automotive parts at ancient wrecking yards or going camping 25 miles down a dirt road from the next nearest human being.)
And WTF is "artificially high resale value"? Is that what someone with a car with crappy resale value says to refute the fact that their car ages like crap?
No. That's what's used to describe the resale value of just about all trucks (real and poseurs like yours) at this current time. I just sold a 1993 Dodge Ram 4x4 with a 318 for $10,000. The thing is a former plow truck with 300,000km on it. That's artificially high resale value.
Anyways, IMHO in general an SUV is not an offroad vehicle. It's a yuppie-mobile.
A real one is.

SUVs became popular only as the manufacturers were being forced to discontinue the full-size RWD station wagons like the Caprice Classic Wagon and LTD Estate.

But people still wanted them. So, noting that the CAFE rules didn't apply to pickup trucks, Detroit started dropping station wagon bodies onto pickup truck frames.

Need more evidence of this? Look up the sales numbers for the original SUVs - Jeep Wagoneer, Chevy Suburban, Dodge Ramcharger, Ford Bronco - before 1987-1988. They'd been around forever (Wagoneer and Suburban since the 1950s!), in fairly small quantities, sold mostly in rural areas. Urban yuppies had no interest in them until they couldn't get the car they really wanted!
The CR-V is an economical family car.
You said it.
For us it's a solid, comfortable grocery getter with more cargo space than our 2 seater for long trips. That's it. All we want is something that drives, holds value well (relatively), is comfortable, reliable, and gets the job done.
Wouldn't you have been better off with a lighter weight, lower aerodynamic profile station wagon? Oh, wait. Can't really make those anymore - thank your government and your environmentalists influencing technology from the depths of their arts degrees!
The Wrangler solves a different problem. I'm sure it's a way better off-road vehicle. But who cares? Look around, you idiot. 99.99% of the people who are buying SUVs today will NEVER take them offroad, unless you count that big gravel patch in the Safeway parking lot offroad.
The Wrangler is a special case, appealing mostly to people looking for a particular image - and it's always been that way, since back when the first 1944-1946 Jeep M-38s (CJ = civilian version of M-38, YJ and TJ are descendents, all the CJ/YJ/TJ models have been called Wranglers at some point) were being surplused after World War II.

But I agree; most of these people would have been better off with station wagons or convertibles.

--
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by thadeusg · 2004-04-19 11:18 · Score: 1

The two remaining American auto makers? Would that be Ford, and uh..Ford? ;) (I'm guessing you mean Ford and GM)

Domestics have been playing catch-up since the 80's in every field except pure horsepower. Domestics for that past couple of decades have been shit. At least Chrysler got smart and just went to making Trucks/SUVs/Vipers and reselling Mitsubishis. Ford is the only domestic company worth it's salt in the technology game, mostly because of it's close ties to Europe, and experience in the WRC. GM is shit, and for too many reasons to go into here.

Honda makes shit automobiles too. You forgot Nissan, Mazda, Subaru, Volkswagen, Audi, BMW, etc..all who make great cars that plain shit on our domestics and Hondas. There's just too many other great great choices to ever pick a Honda or a domestic.

The best car makers either rally race, or endurance race their offerings. End. Of. Story.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by BigBlockMopar · 2004-04-19 11:31 · Score: 1

To summarize. Car use accounts for approx. 84% of the energy expended in the life cycle of a car. Recycling itself (crushing) is insignificant. Material production and manufacturing is about 14%.
Do you have references? Because I think they've got it reversed.

Let's start with the assumption that the average car lasts 200,000 miles. That's generous, I think you'll agree if you've ever wandered around a junkyard and looked at odometers.

Now, calculate back, projecting the car's fuel economy, to figure out how many gallons of gasoline it went through. Now figure out how many joules, BTUs, calories, whatever, of energy that was.

Now, estimate the mass of the car. Consider that it will probably be melted twice during each production cycle, whether it's as ingots, sheets, or castings. Estimate 50% efficiency in the die-stamping of body panels - think of using a cookie-cutter on cookie dough, what percentage do you have to roll up into a ball (remelt) and try again to make your cookies?

And then tell me how much coal it takes to do that.
Oh, and btw, 1990-spec emissions are now 14 years out of date. So meeting them isn't too impressive.
You clearly know nothing about cars.

This is a 34 year old car without EFI, a catalytic converter or EGR system.

The carburetor is a Carter BBD mounted on a Feather Duster aluminum intake manifold. Air cleaner is factory from a 1975 model, with heat stove system (keeps intake air temperature constant) connected and working. Exhaust is a Hedman 6:1 header with a 3" exhaust into a suitable glasspack muffler, 2" from the muffler back. Ignition is 1974-1975 Chrysler Electronic with a Mopar Performance aftermarket spark control computer. Engine and head are original cast iron, bored 0.030" over and polished ports, respectively. Crank is dead-stock forged iron. Transmission is a TorqueFlite A-518 with same underdrive ratios as original 904, but an overdrive gear added (didn't matter on the dyno, only tested at idle and 40km/h, and even then, my car was exempt from emissions testing; I did it for fun). Diff is original open-ended with 2.94 gears. Everything in the car has CARB EO numbers, so the car is 50-state legal (the engine would officially be classed as a 1974/1975 aftermarket, even though it's still the original 1970 block and heads).

That *is* impressive; most impressively, it demonstrates how well the car is maintained. (Most well-maintained old cars will blow nearly as clean as modern cars.)

Noting, of course, that there was only one emissions system requirement (PCV valve) at the time that car was built, and yet it blows away 1972 requirements, 1974 requirements, 1976 requirements, 1980 requirements, 1985 requirements, and falls somewhere into 1988-1990 requirements. Of course, 1988 was when the most arduous new requirements were added...

--
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-19 11:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

A poser SUV? What the fuck do you call a Cadillac SUV then, or 99% of the other SUVs on the market?
You just answered your own question. But as it's already been pointed out, they're still better than a CR-V

At least if I took my CR-V offroad and broke it I could replace it without breaking the bank!
I thought you said it had a great resale value....

Anyways, IMHO in general an SUV is not an offroad vehicle. It's a yuppie-mobile. The CR-V is an economical family car.
No it's an SUV. Don't take my word for it, ask the DMV, your insurance company, or the federal gov't. Do you even know what CR-V stands for?

The Wrangler solves a different problem. I'm sure it's a way better off-road vehicle. But who cares?
One would think you would, judging by the type of vehicle you bought. It's absolutely retarded to buy a vehicle with a center of gravity that high if you're never going to take it off road. Was it the worse gas mileage, or the possibility of rollover that sold you on this purchase?

Look around, you idiot. 99.99% of the people who are buying SUVs today will NEVER take them offroad, unless you count that big gravel patch in the Safeway parking lot offroad.
So maybe you should have bought a decent CAR then instead of a wanna-be SUV.

In the market segment your vehicle is from, the Wrangler is clearly the better choice. (Unless you're buying an SUV for silly yuppie reasons.) You made the choice to say the American vehicles suck, and I pointed out that there's an American vehicle better than the one you're driving.

If you go around making silly generalizations like "American cars suck", expect to get called on it.

Personally, I drive a Mazda, but I appreciate nice cars from ANY country.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by drsmithy · 2004-04-19 14:43 · Score: 1

Wow.... Uhhh, yeah. So you've got a Honda Civic or some other piece of junk which only lasts 7 years.
Uh, pick on POS cars like Hyundais and Daewoos if you want, but well built small cars like Honda Civics and Mazda 323s (not sure what you call them in the US) are *extremely* reliable, as long as you look after them. If someone gets less than 10 years out of a Civic, they've only got themselves to blame - and there's no shortage of 15 and 20 year old Civics running around (at least here in Australia).
Buy a good and *durable* car that is easy to work on - not some Japanese tinfoil crap. Wash it and wax it every week. Change the oil every 4,000km or three months. Keep the engine tuned up, and when it needs rings and bearings, do it.
If you treat one of those "Japanese tinfoil crap" cars with half that care, it should last _at least_ as long.
Can't buy a new car like that these days.
Well that's kinda hard to know since you'll have to wait thirty years to find out, isn't it ?
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by Civil_Disobedient · 2004-04-19 15:23 · Score: 1

Slant Six's are some of the best engines ever manufactured. They are also some of the most fuel efficient motors ever mass-produced in this country. In 1975 the Feather Duster and Dart Light were equipped with /6's and got 36 mpg. This at the height of the oil crisis.

Please put the "American Gas-Guzzler" myth to rest.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by Micro$will · 2004-04-19 15:41 · Score: 1

My automotive stable includes a 1970 Dodge Dart with a Slant-6. Fits my 6'4" tall body comfortably, starts every morning with the legendary Chrysler gear-reduction "dive bomber" starter motor and a satisfying click-click-click of the solid lifters, gets 28MPG and blows as clean on the emissions test as a 1990-spec.

You can get rid of the clickety click by adjusting the valve lash to within specs. According to my Chiltons, it's .010" Intake, .020" Exhaust. My old Volare was as quiet as a hydraulic lifter car until the body rusted out and I had to junk it.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by TheLittleJetson · 2004-04-19 15:52 · Score: 1

I agree with you on the headlights point -- the going price for xenon bulbs seems to be about 25 bucks for a set of 4 (reg & brights).

with that said, you've gotta be smoking crack to think hondas only last 7 years. for christs sake, the warranty is that long. my brother drove a honda civic del sol for 200,000+ miles -- only replaced tires and brakes, and it was still in great condition when he got rid of it. meanwhile, i drove an 88 dodge diplomat... couldn't even make it to 80,000 miles before it died. both climate control systems broke, as did the washers, defogger and radio. the engine ran like CRAP, stalled out at almost every light -- this is after i replaced plugs, wires, cap, all the filters and had the timing adjusted several times. the body is so heavy that it couldn't corner faster than 10mph without peeling out. i replaced it with a BMW 3-series with over 120,000 miles on it -- and it runs better than the dodge EVER did.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by fred911 · 2004-04-19 16:42 · Score: 1

"Keep the engine tuned up, and when it needs rings and bearings, do it."

99% of the US consumer will discard a domestic product when it needs rings or bearings. Mainly due to the fact the product is crap. I've never see stateside maintance records showing any top end work, as it's not considered maintance. Driving a 100k domestic sled is a crap shoot, gime a discarded Saab (pre 95), Volvo, Benz, or BMW.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by wdavies · 2004-04-19 17:07 · Score: 1

Why did the companies stop making station wagons? I'm curious - I must admit when i was growing up in Britain in the 70s Station Wagons (or Estate Cars we called em over there) were very popular for families.

Winton
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by MattyCobb · 2004-04-19 19:36 · Score: 1

Americans build Hondas, Mexicans build Chevys, Canadians build some Fords. Looks like AMERICANS are still building the best cars. :)

americans assemble hondas and put a sticker on them ;) not quite the same thing

--

Matt
You have 1 Moderator Point! Use it or lose it! Is that a threat? -vapid
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2004-04-19 21:40 · Score: 1

In the 1970s, people replaced cars in a few years because they generally rusted and fell apart in a few years.
Nowadays, cars have more like a 10 year life span, particularly the Japanese and German cars.
But people still replace them. Partly it's about new features, sometimes it's oneupmanship, sometimes it's idiocy about "we'd better replace it after 3 years or it will start costing too much" (like spending money on parts is often a worst thing to do than replacing the car).
I'm glad people do, though. Allows people like me to get cheaper secondhand cars.
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by NighthawkFoo · 2004-04-19 23:45 · Score: 1

I don't know about you, but my McDonald's uniform was decidedly not rated to survive armageddon.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by NighthawkFoo · 2004-04-20 02:32 · Score: 1

Duly noted, and I've updated my signature to reflect that.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:How much energy does recycling a car take? by (C)0N0(R) · 2004-04-20 16:14 · Score: 1

I'd consider anything full-frame, RWD, American made: Caprice Classic, Crown Victoria, pickup trucks without silly crap like power windows and carpets.

I have my eye on a 72 Chevelle six cylinder automatic that my friends' grandmother owned- all original, garage kept for the last 20 years. $1500=mine.

Also, consider a V6 Mustang. They're designed for the output of the V8, with some room to spare for performance mods, and I would suspect that the torsional loads on the body (which contribute massively to paint cracking and metal fatigue) would be substantially minimalized with the V6. As for the V6 drivetrain itself, I dunno....

Performance-wise these cars dont have the suspension/steering/braking of the v8 models, esp. the GT and SVO, etc. ones.

Though, if you get the V8, treat it well and hang onto it for a long time, you might even find that it appreciates in value (20 years +).

I still use the engine from a car I bought in '88 for $1000 (327 chevy) and is now in a former NJBell van (originally equiped with an inline-6/column-shift manual trans/manual steering) that I bought for $500 in '92. I decided not to put my Muncie M-21 into the van (saving for a suitable ride-thinking the 72 chevelle...) so I threw in a Turbo350 transmission (readily found for the price of a $case.of.beer+$250 for a rebuild w/trailer-shift-kit). Installed a HEI distributor. I also converted to power steering from parts laying around. (Note that the chevy G-series van from the early 70s thru mid-90s remained largely unchanged -thus the widely available parts).

Aside from the trans rebuild, all work was done myself. I consider it a 'sleeper'; it looks like a phone co. truck (I can park in Manhattan and the parking brownies just walk on by...) and it handles well (factory heavy duty springs and sway bars- unusual for 6-cyl Mustangs, but not so on trucks) and really gets up and goes- suprises most passengers.

--
The light at the end of the tunnel is a train.

Don't I know it! by MattT · 2004-04-19 06:19 · Score: 1

I recently replaced my 14 year old Honda Civic with a new Mazda 3, and now I find that the manufacturer WILL NOT give me enough information to do my own oil changes! The owners manual doesn't list the filter part number, doesn't show it's location, and states that "Since a special tool is required to remove the oif filter, this service should only be done at a Mazda certified service center"

The dealer wants $42 to change the oil, but will sell me the filter and required O-ring kit(still won't give me the part numbers) for low low price of... $22!!!

I've got to dind a trustworthy shop... I'll be dammed if I'm giving the dealer another cent!

--
-MattT *** Not speaking for my employer, or any other sentient beings ***

another reason not to post angry by MattT · 2004-04-19 06:22 · Score: 1

oops...

s/dind/find

--
-MattT *** Not speaking for my employer, or any other sentient beings ***

Resources by Teclis · 2004-04-19 06:26 · Score: 1

I heard this in one of my classes about China. China is now undergoing an automobile revolution. More and more people are switching from bicycles to automobiles.

I was told that if the Chinese wanted the same ratio of cars to people as the United States, there is not enough raw Steel capable of doing that. That scares me into thinking, how much resources do we really have left? If we make "disposable" cars, wouldn't that cause an increased rate of mineral loss, even WITH recycling?

Frankly, I don't think disposable cars are possible.

--
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. --Isaac Asimov

vehicular-neo-luddite follow-up by kpharmer · 2004-04-19 06:29 · Score: 1

My original post sounded sufficiently contrarian that I figured I should post a follow-up:

Link to a site dedicated to the ultimate sturdy vehicle: http://www.binderbulletin.org/ There you'll find stories from hundreds (maybe thousands) of current owners of 25-40 year old vehicles.

If you don't believe that a 30 year old vehicle can provide reliable and affordable daily transportation - just ask these guys.

Do-it-yourself is dead by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 06:33 · Score: 1, Interesting

IAAHM (I am a home mechanic) and have done repairs from simple to complex. Including maintaining 30+ year old cars in daily use. There are two truths only one brought out in the article:

THE FIRST TRUTH - disclosed
* Electronics = Complexity = Cost
When a simply networked 1996 compact had faulty wiring, senors and cpu, it was a total disaster. The car would quit running at 65MPH due to an erroronious stop code being sent to the cpu.

Thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of my time resulted in the car becoming more well-behaved, but it was never right. This included the manufacturers warranty and HQ Tech Support.

So when your GM Hy-Wire fuel cell powered, drive by wire car deleveops a short - - just throw it out and buy a new one.

THE SECOND TRUTH - secret!
Big auto-makers and big dealerships DO NOT WANT YOU TO FIX YOUR OWN CAR. They want the profits they make (more than they make from selling the cars) from fixing it for you.

Go to any autoparts store and get a price on say disc brake pads and rotors for your car. Then call a dealship and ask for the price on the same parts. If it isn't at least DOUBLE the price as the autoparts store, I'll eat my (red) hat, er fedora.

Also just try and find any anti-pollution related parts at the autoparts store. They are patented and not available outside of the dealership parts department. Try and find "non-traditional" parts such as the cpu, wire harness, sensors, certain body parts, etc. Only at the dealerships. For these parts the dealship can see you coming from 200 miles out, and the prices are set accordingly. Yeah bend over.

A changed over just occured (model year 2003 I think) to a new network sub-system and computer OS, which obsoletes every existing piece of diagnosic equipment in use for newer cars. The older models still use the old equipment. How long before these new dx tools are made only for dealerships? Are priced so high only the large shops can buy them? Are even available for purchase unless you qualify as a "Mr. Goodtool"?

So there are really two factors in play,

1) The cars are not really diagnosable, since the diagnosis relies on the the electronics, network and on-board computer. When the network and computer controls sub-systems fail, you're screwed blue.

2) Big auto is artifically driving (pun intended) up the costs of repair, and limiting what kinds or repairs and model year of car can be repaired, by using a kind of DCMA on parts and repair technology.

In my opinion the Second Truth has much, much more to do with the high cost of repair than the first truth. Artifical price control.

Honda by Momomoto · 2004-04-19 06:35 · Score: 1

This was mentioned previously, but I'll expand on it by saying that Honda has mandated that, by the end of this year, 95% of the products and materials be recyclable. This is on top of Honda of Canada (as an example) recycling 98% of their manufacturing waste.

As an aside, if you're a manufacturing geek and you ever get a chance to visit a Honda plant (such as the one in Alliston, ON), take it. The place is absolutely spectacular.

--
"Max, come over here. French-Canadian bean soup. I want to pay. Let them leave me alone." - Dutch Schultz

Lack of Real Choice by bplipschitz · 2004-04-19 06:36 · Score: 1

What's missing in the new car world today is a lack of Real Choice. Granted, there never was a lot of Real Choice, but it's dwindled to almost nothing these days.

In years past, you had a choice of interiors [vinyl/cloth/leather], transmissions [manual or automatic], power/manual windows, bucket or bench seats, cruise control/not etc. Now there are no choices in many of these areas, and you are stuck with a pile of expensive geegaws that you may not want in the first place.

Where this really blows my mind is in the world of pickup trucks.

Growing up, my dad was in agribusiness. The most 'frills' you could wish for [or even *wanted*, for that matter] would be A/C and FM on the radio. Today, trucks are nothing more than big luxury cars. I hate to have to use one in agribusiness--it might get dirty!

What needs to be done is that cars should be more like PCs--pick your frame, your body style, your engine, your transmission [manual for me], window types, etc. etc.

Make it modular, give people Real Choices [electric, gasoline, diesel, biodiesle, greasel or fuel cell engine & no power windows for me, thanks] and I might buy a new car. Until then, no way.

Re:Lack of Real Choice by Ender_Stonebender · 2004-04-19 12:50 · Score: 1

I've thought about doing this, actually. It's just too complex to offer Real Choices to the consumer. Not to mention that the consumer would need to make too many choices!

First you need to offer a range of frame lengths; then a range of crossmember widths; then you need to match all possible combinations of frame and crossmember to appropriate suspension and drivetrain options; then you need to figure out what kind of steering system you can wrap around the stuff you've already got in thee; then you need to match all of those with all possible body styles...you end up having forty different driver's side front doors to match different combination of height, body style, and power/manual windows.

It could be done, but I think the barrier to entry is a currently a little too high. Of course, if you combined this with simple diagnostic tools that allowed the owner to replace modular compenents easily with just a 10mm socket wrench, you might have a change of actually surviving in the market.

--Ender

--
Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.

Don't forget... by Gordonjcp · 2004-04-19 06:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

... that it takes far more energy to make a car than it does to run one. If you take an extremely long-lived car like a Volvo 240, with a design life of 22 years, you will *just* use as much energy driving it for that time as it took to make the car. Modern cars use a hell of a lot more energy to make.

Couple it with the worse (yes, worse) pollution from modern cars fitted with catalytic converters, and from unleaded petrol (hmm, replace tetraethyl lead with two class-A carcinogens, clever) and it suddenly doesn't make sense to have everyone in new cars for "environmental reasons", does it?

Re:Oxymoron? by terrymr · 2004-04-19 06:42 · Score: 1

aluminum isn't any less flamable than magnesium.

You're Missing the Point by Constantin · 2004-04-19 06:42 · Score: 1

Yes, car parts are becoming more disposable and expensive to buy. And yes, this is by design on the part of the car companies that are sick and tired of other companies copying their designs and selling the parts to mechanics for less. To paraphrase Henry Ford "I'll give away the cars for free as long as you guarantee me the replacement parts market".

Thus, the emphasis on superior materials that also happen to be harder to copy by others. That raises the cost of market entry and hopefully thus reduces third-party competition for parts. Who said that car companies have your interests at heart? They exist to make money, and the repair business is where it's at.

What the writer of this article missed, however, are the costs displaced by all this superior technology finding its ways into cars. Tell me, have you looked at a serious hospital bill lately? My appendectomy (1 day stay) cost over $7,000. Do you have any idea what the cost of major trauma is? I have yet to experience a roll-over like the kid in the BMW, but any kind of head-injury is bound to be expensive. The bags (and presumably the seatbelt) saved the kid from that.

The going rate for surgery is $25 a minute. Never mind intensive care and more pedestrian regular ward stays. If a car requires $15,000 repairs but the hospital costs were reduced by $50,000 (sample 1-month stay) then society comes out ahead. However, this medical cost reduction benefit may be less applicable in countries with lower medical costs than the US.

Furthermore, my understanding is that any kind of roll-over usually totals a car by default, much like complete floodings and other damage that may result in frame, electrical, or other damage that is hard or uneconomical to rectify. Granted, you can repair said damage, but would you trust a frame that has been bent once before? Ever wonder why the salvage title category even exists at the DMV?

Similarly, if a $1,500 HID system allows a driver to avoid several accidents, then the system pays for itself rather quickly. When most of todays cars were designed, the folks in the car companies probably did not forsee the popularity of HID or even air-bag theft (which is more popular than radio theft in the USA, apparently). I know that HID theft certainly made me more paranoid on where to park my car.

Cats? by PTBNL · 2004-04-19 06:42 · Score: 2, Funny

Hmm...and I thought it read:

"Technology Makes New Cats Too Expensive to Fix"

Guess it's time for another cup of coffee!

more than one side to terrorism by urmensch · 2004-04-19 06:45 · Score: 1

I wonder how tolerant and pro-semitic you would be if a race/religion and wannabe nation came to your country to set up shop (commiting terrorism while they were at it)?

from wikipedia.

But the rise to power of Adolf Hitler in Germany in 1933 produced a powerful new impetus for Zionism. Not only did it create a flood of Jewish refugees -- at a time when the United States had closed its doors to further immigration -- but it undermined the faith of Jews that they could live in security as minorities in non-Jewish societies. Jewish opinion began to shift in favour of Zionism, and pressure for more Jewish immigration to Palestine increased. But the more Jews settled in Palestine, the more aroused Palestinian Arab opinion became, and the more difficult the situation became in Palestine. In 1936 serious Arab rioting broke out, and in response the British authorities issued the White Paper, severely restricting further Jewish immigration.

The Jewish community in Palestine responded by organising armed forces, based on smaller units developed to defend remote agricultural settlements. Two military movements were founded, the Labor-dominated Haganah and the Revisionist Irgun. The latter group did not hesitate to take military action against the Arab population. With the advent of World War II, both groups decided that defeating Hitler took priority over the fight against the British. However, attacks against British targets were recommenced in 1940 by a splinter group of the Irgun, later known as Lehi, and in 1944 by the Irgun itself.

Re:more than one side to terrorism by ValourX · 2004-04-19 06:54 · Score: 1

Moving into a country is not a good reason to hate Jews. There IS no good reason for hate, period.

If it had been other Muslims moving into the country the Palestinians wouldn't have been so bothered.
-Jem
Re:more than one side to terrorism by urmensch · 2004-04-19 06:54 · Score: 1

Actually, it talks about that. Go RTFEntry.
Re:more than one side to terrorism by urmensch · 2004-04-19 07:10 · Score: 1

I didn't say it was a good reason. But it is a reason for them to hate Zionists and makes it easy for the ignorant/untaught to make the step to hating all Jews and their supporters. Your previous comment saying the entire arab culture is intolerant is so general. Christians and Muslims lived peacefully in palestine for centuries before Zionists came to town.

If it had been other Muslims moving into the country the Palestinians wouldn't have been so bothered.

I bet they would have if those Muslims had decided they wanted to rule part of Palestine for themselves. Especially if they resorted to killing to establish their rule.
Re:more than one side to terrorism by comedian23 · 2004-04-19 07:26 · Score: 1

I don't really have time to do the research on this one, but I have read a little on this in the past.

Basically the Arabs(Muslims) and Jews have a much longer history than Jews magically deciding to invade Palestine in 1933. Jews have actually had a nation on the lands of Israel over 2000 years ago, and were spread throughout much of the middle east. This was before the Muslim religion was created/discovered. Many were forcibly evicted(or slaughtered) by Arabs around 600 A.D. from much of the area. Mohammed himself was responsible for a lot of it if I remember correctly. And the "Palestinians"(the vast majority anyway) were moved into the lands of Israel by the British govt. in the early 1900s. There never was a nation called Palestine.

Anyway, my point isn't that Jews or Arabs has a right to the land. It is more that if you go back far enough in that area, EVERYONE has some claim to it. Also all parties involved are probably guilty of "taking" that land from someone else at one point or another.

Both sides could really benefit from trying a little harder at the peace process and forgetting this, "well, he hit me first" stuff.
Re:more than one side to terrorism by urmensch · 2004-04-19 07:45 · Score: 1

That was a point I was trying to make. Thank you for clarifying.

I can't give an personal opinion about a war that happened in a powergrab in 600AD, but I do think the UN giving oficial status to Zionism was a mistake. The question remains, however, were do we go from here?
Re:more than one side to terrorism by Probashi · 2004-04-19 07:59 · Score: 1

Actually, Arabs would not want muslims from other countries, say India to move into their land and settle there. In fact, if you look at the way things happend, the neighbouring Arab countries did not give the Palestanians any kind of citizenship/rights when they fled their home. The creatioin of Israel was really done without thinking about the consequence (or just ignoring the fact the Arabs are humans too with the same want of having their land).

Regardless of that history, Israel is a fact and Jews cannot be just forced to leave that place like some fanatics on the Arabs are saying. A compromise has to be reached. But, the fanatics on the Israeli side (which includes Mr. Sharon), want a greater Israel with rest of the Palestanian lands and they are not in the mode for compromise either. And, off course, Bush did not help the matter by giving Sharon the license to keep much of the West Bank either.
Re:more than one side to terrorism by Probashi · 2004-04-19 08:04 · Score: 1

Bzzt, wrong. Jews were gone from that area before 600 AD. The diaspora began in the time when Christians had the control over that piece of land. Jews were persecuted almost everywhere they went in Europe. The irony is that they got sanctuary in muslim countries like Turkey and they lived peacefully with the Muslims till the Zionist movement began in late 19th century.
Re:more than one side to terrorism by comedian23 · 2004-04-19 08:31 · Score: 1

Sorry, my wording was wrong. It made it sound like the Jews were driven out of Israel by the Muslims in the 600s.

What I meant by "area" was the middle east. I have found numerous sources stating that Mohammed warred against Jews driving them out of the middle east. Depending on the source he was either the lands liberator, and was constantly hounded by Jews, or he slaughtered and massacred them. But all sources I could find specifically mention that he warred with the Jews in the middle east, destroying their towns and driving them out.

I believe they are specifically talking about Mecca/Medina area which are both in Saudi Arabia if my memory serves me right.

My wording of my previous post didn't make this distinction clear tho.
Re:more than one side to terrorism by Probashi · 2004-04-19 10:02 · Score: 1

I don't remember how many wars Mohammed fought against the Jews. One of them happened when Jews broke a treaty with Mohammed and gave help to the Qureshis (sp?) fighting him. In that war, Mohammed's army defeated the Jews.

I can't claim that I remember all the incidents that occured between the Muslims and Jews during Mohammed's time. But, certainly, it had nothing to do with driving Jews from the ancestoral Israel. Hence, present day Arabs should not have been penalized for the mistreatment of Jews by the Europeans Christian over the centuries (ending with Hitler's monstrocities). Moreover, British promised the Arabs that land back in return of getting help to defeat the turks around the WW I timeframe. The British stabbed the Arabs in the back and gave the land to Jews through Belfour agreement. The UN resolution that created Israel did not ask for Arabs give up their land.

Now the whole thing is a mess. Israel is a reality and cannot be undone without another atrocity. Arabs has to live with that and stop the terrostic activities. But, Israelies also need to realise the rights of Palestainies and withdraw behind 1967 borders. Israel keeps on encroaching on whatever is left of Arab/Palestine land. The peace would not come any other way.
Re:more than one side to terrorism by Chacham · 2004-04-20 05:38 · Score: 1

Jews were gone from that area before 600 AD

Not true. There was continues Jewish settlement there for at least another 500 years. There was tremendous peresecution and thus a lower population between something like 400-600, but it picked up after that and flourished until at least 1100.

The diaspora began in the time when Christians had the control over that piece of land.

Also untrue.

The Diaspora began with the Roman conquest in ~68. Though many stayed. After the Bar Kochba uprising (~130) there was more dispersion. The X-tians did not gain power until Constantine converted, with happened ~200 years later. Although, after that there was tremendous persecution of Jews for a little while.

--
Have you read my journal today?
Re:more than one side to terrorism by Chacham · 2004-04-20 05:41 · Score: 1

It's incorrect. Zionism was about for fifty years before that. But even before Zionism there were significant Jewish neiborhoods by at least 1850. Before that, there was always Jewish settelment, but it had a downturn somewhere around 1100 (i think, might be 1200).

--
Have you read my journal today?
Re:more than one side to terrorism by Chacham · 2004-04-20 05:47 · Score: 1

The creatioin of Israel was really done without thinking about the consequence

The creation of Israel came about after the Arabs rejected the UNs plan, and the British didn't exactly help. Before that, Jews had lived for hundreds of years under Arab rule, though the Zionists had this plan of making a state that the traditional Jews didn't necessarily care for.

(or just ignoring the fact the Arabs are humans too with the same want of having their land).

Considering Arab settlement of Israel didn't happen until after Jewish settlement (except for a small area in Jerusalem) i don't think that is a point worth noting.

But, the fanatics on the Israeli side (which includes Mr. Sharon), want a greater Israel

So the disengagement plan which gives up a great amount of land to the Arabs proposed and pushed by Sharon is nothing?

--
Have you read my journal today?
Re:more than one side to terrorism by Probashi · 2004-04-21 10:11 · Score: 1

I stand corrected. But, initial point still is that Muslims were not the ones drove the Jews out of Israel.

Re: Absolutely,the legs are worth it. by A55M0NKEY · 2004-04-19 06:50 · Score: 1

Most people would pay almost anything to keep their legs - even thousands and thousands of dollars. But what they actually pay, is usually limited by what they actually *have available* to spend. Somebody always ends up driving the motorized Radio Flyer.

It is probably possible to spend upwards of 10 grand more on a car with extra safety features, and when they actually come into play and save someone, then that person is invariably glad they spent the money.

But suppose feature X costs an extra $1000 and actually comes into play and saves someone from injury Y in 1 out of 100000 cars. Then society as a whole spent 100 million dollars preventing that one injury or death. A human life is worth substantially less than 100 million dollars. Or put a different way: it is possible to save many more than 1 life by spending 100 million dollars more intelligently than on fitting 100000 cars with safety feature X.

I don't have a problem with those who have disposable income wasting money trying to protect themselves from injury in an accident that probably won't ever happen, but whenever a new safety feature comes out it is usually mandated for all new cars within a few years.

Politicians that enact these mandated safety features should always, ( as cold as it seems ), decide on a number represent the dollar value of a human life and then weigh the cost of fitting all cars with feature X against it's expected value in prevented deaths/serious injuries ( $ value of 1 human life * prevented deaths ) - cost of fitting all cars with feature X should be positive.

If ( # people saved by airbags driving year X model year cars * dollar value of 1 human life ) - ( cost of 1 regulation airbag * cars purchased in year X ) is less than zero, then the regulation has resulted in money being spent unwisely. It has resulted in MORE DEATHS since part of societies life saving budget has been squandered stupidly on air bags.

But seat belts would probably be another story because they are so much cheaper and probably have more overall safety value than airbags and are probably involved in saving more lives.

According to NHTST about 5000 people have been saved by airbags total in the US. If there are 1 cars for every 3 people and 70% have airbags at $1000 each then that's $11,600,000.00 per life saved.

I am sure there are ways to save more than one life ( even in the US ) for eleven million dollars.

--

Eat at Joe's.

Why not? by gone.fishing · 2004-04-19 07:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

The idea of "disposable cars" disturbs me. But when I think about it on an "outside of the box" level, I realize that we already have them. We have them because style and marketing make us want newer cars. Cars are status symbols that very much tell other people about us. We buy them to show others a piece of our personality. And we trade them in to get a car that tells people something about us that was missing in the previous model. Cars are a class system.

When I think a bit further about it, I'm thinking wouldn't it be neat to have a modular snap-together system of major assemblies that would fit in a chassis? That way you could buy whatever module you wanted and install it. You could have a Ford motor, A GM Tranny, an Allison rear end in a Honda body. When a module got to the point where it needed replacement you could shop for the features and price you wanted. Rebuilders could fix up old modules and sell them as replacements.

This concept is not without precident in the automotive industry. Checker did it for years and years, some big truck manufacturers do it to some extent today. Some buses have their motors and transmissions mounted on a pan that can be installed with a forklift, putting the bus with a blown engine or tranny back on the road in as little as forty five minutes.

It ain't gonna happen though. Manufacturers like things the way they are today.

I go to several large old car shows a year. I think I have hit on an idea that will put me in nice wheels at a reasonable cost. Several of these shows have areas set aside for cars that are for sale. Some of the really hot restored cars sell for tens of thousands of dollars but less hot fully restored cars are frequently inexpensive. You can get six cyl '67 Mustangs in fully-restored shape for five grand. This is a lot less than a new car and these cars are wonderful, unique, and would be up to the task of being a daily driver. I am seriously considering one of these machines insetad of a new car.

Absolutely by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · 2004-04-19 07:07 · Score: 1

But don't mind me, I'll just be right here laughing as people with SUVs suck down $4 gas in a year or so... There must be, after all, limits to the power of Bandar bin Sultan (despite his lovely promises to keep the oil coming.)

--

What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

Re:Absolutely by MadHungarian1917 · 2004-04-19 08:04 · Score: 1

And the reason some of us drive the hated SUV is the abysmal maintenance of the public highways. I loved my VW quantum turbodiesel it had cargo space and great mileage 40+ MPG however I could not afford $600-800 for suspension repairs evey couple of months due to pothole damage ( I live in the sticks ) So I bought the hated SUV where even at $4.00 Gal gas is still cheaper than the repairs on a "green" car and I do not need to bring it into the shop frequently.

What I really want is comprehensive rail service so that I only need a car for trips to the station and vacations.

It did save that kids life by jmcconne · 2004-04-19 07:09 · Score: 1

While I understand the headlight thing is a travesty, I don't have a problem with the airbags. If my wife was a in an accident I'd rather 20 airbags go off and save her life, than none at all. Even if it costs more money. I imagine the aluminum repair will get cheaper as more cars with that feature become available. Until then, don't buy a car that's all aluminum.

Philip Greenspun saw this coming by babbage · 2004-04-19 07:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Philip Greenspun wrote a fascinating analysis of this a few months ago. To quote part of it:

Home Depot sells window air conditioners for $80. They are made in China. When it breaks you throw it out. Twenty years ago a window air conditioner cost $1000 in today's money. When it broke you called the repairman.
You can buy a 27" TV for less than $200. It is made in China. If someone asks you what brand of TV you have, unless you're a geek with no life, you won't have a clue. You don't see ads for Daewoo or Apex TVs. When it breaks you throw it out. Forty years ago the TV industry employed at least one million Americans. TVs were made here. They cost so much that they needed to be financed, thus creating jobs in banks. If they broke every neighborhood had a TV repairman to come out and service the machine. Some of the most expensive advertising campaigns of the day were for cars. Consequently, consumers were intensely brand-loyal and proud to own an RCA, a Philco or whatever.
Once something can be assembled in China out of 100% Chinese-made components it can sell for approximately 1/10th the previous price.
Let's look at cars. According to http://www.autoalliance.org/ecofacts.htmthe auto industry employs at least 5 percent of Americans. People have jobs making cars. Because cars are so expensive people have jobs financing them, repairing them, and insuring them against collision and theft. Because cars are so expensive, people have jobs marketing and advertising them (more than $1000 of the price of a normalcar has gone into advertising, probably closer to $5000 for a Mercedes or BMW).
Within 10 to 20 years the Chinese will be able to sell a car that is very similar to today's rental car:4 doors, 4 seats, air conditioner, radio, new but not fancy. It will cost between $2000 and $3000 in today's dollars. With cars that cheap it will be unthinkable to manufacture in the U.S. Consumers won't bother to finance a $2000 purchase separately (maybe they'll add it to their credit card debt). Drivers will still carry liability insurance but won't bother with collision or theft coverage. With cars that cheap it won't make sense to advertise. If Ford or Toyota tried to sell the average person a $25,000 car they would simply laugh, much as a Walmart shopper would think you're crazy if you tried to persuade him to spend $2,000 on a TV.

If his analysis is correct -- and it certainly seems plausible -- then the predictions he goes on to make from there are wide-ranging and dramatic. What happens if the 5% of the American workforce that makes, sells, and finances cars is suddenly out of a job? What other manufacturing field could pick up that much slack? Can the economy change course in time to maintain America's wealth, or could this drastically accelerate the loss of blue (and now white) collar jobs that we've been seeing since the 1970s?

Maybe we should all just go apply at Wal-Mart now. At least then in 10 years we'll have a shot at being a minimum wage shlobs with seniority.

--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL

Re:Philip Greenspun saw this coming by WebMasterJoe · 2004-04-19 08:50 · Score: 1

What happens if the 5% of the American workforce that makes, sells, and finances cars is suddenly out of a job?
If Americans can get cars for $2,000 instead of $20,000, they'll (theoretically) have another $18,000 kicking around to buy other products. The 5% of Americans who just lost their jobs will now be making those other products, most likely.

Yes, it's simplified, but you get the general idea.

--
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
Re:Philip Greenspun saw this coming by babbage · 2004-04-19 09:16 · Score: 1

The 5% of Americans who just lost their jobs will now be making those other products, most likely.

Yeah, but that's the thing: what other products? We've outsourced almost every blue collar manufacturing industry overseas by now, and the white collar jobs are starting to follow them.
What industry is going to be the white knight to come in and save all the thousands of UAW workers, shop mechanics, financial services staff, etc?
The only industry that seems to be consistently going up is retail, but that's hardly a promising career move for most people.
++++
It seems to me that this whole business of "we can just switch industries" is nothing so much as a version of the libertarian's beloved broken window fallacy: the idea that switching to something else will magically solve any of our problems seems optimistic & questionable at best. Something about that concept has never seemed convincing to me, but I can't honestly put my finger on what I think the problem might be.
In any case, your argument is seductive: maybe freeing up the thousands of dollars people spend on cars will allow other industries to flourish: I certainly hope that would be true. But at the same time, it could be an awfully traumatic shock to the economy, especially at a time when all those millions of greying baby boomers are about to retire, and I'm having a hard time seeing something positive that we could transform our economy into next. Maybe in hindsight it will seem obvious, but at this point I'm pretty pessimistic...

--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Re:Philip Greenspun saw this coming by KD5YPT · 2004-04-24 03:05 · Score: 1

According to most development cycle, once a country starts out as agricultural (raw materials) then they move to manufacturing (current state of USA), then a country either become a financing center (Hong Kong, Switzerland) or a tourist nation (Most Europe).

Exceptions are Singapore and Hong Kong, they move directly to become a financing nation since they don't have much land to be an agricultural nor a manufacturing nation.

--
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.

You were doing so well and then by /dev/trash · 2004-04-19 07:23 · Score: 1

You still need to change the oil every 3,000 miles.

3000 is a waste. 4500-5500 is now the standard.

Cars should be IEEE compliant by dobax · 2004-04-19 07:24 · Score: 1

Cars should be IEEE compliant, i mean, IEEE or somebody like that should make standard specifications for a car, and different companies would just make cars according to this model. Cars would show a IEEE-compliant logo or something, making repairs less expensive (you can buy any IEEE repair part) and labour would be comfortable to the pockets as well. Am I the only one with this point here?

I'd be willing to pay.... by b0s0z0ku · 2004-04-19 07:27 · Score: 1

$25,000 or so for a car that didn't have most of the unneeded luxury features of modern cars, but was capable of running 400-500k miles without serious problems. Picture a car with the basic safety features - front airbags and seatbelts all around, good disc (not necessarily ABS) brakes, nimble handling - which also happens to meet US emissions standards (not hard to do, if you don't try to squeeze 300hp out of an engine). The engine would be mounted at the rear of the car to allow for rear wheel drive (better handling) without a heavy driveshaft and would be a flat-4 (or even a flat-2), perhaps made by Subaru or BMW Motorcycles. An added advantage of the engine placement would be a short, cheap, exhaust system run, if replacement was ever necessary (also, no exhaust system to damage on road obstacles). Transmission would be a standard 5- or 6- speed manual gearbox. The engine/transmission unit would be easily removable, with only connections for the shift/clutch linkage, electrical (multi-pin), drive axles to the wheels, and fuel. The radiator and exhaust would be mounted to the motor, so everything could come out as a unit if needed.

A hybrid drive system composed of in-wheel front motors connected through a controller to a battery pack would be optional. This would also have the advantage of giving the car AWD.

Doors would be full-length gullwings, to obviate the need for a B-pillar (easier entry, better visibility) without having weak doors that meet in the center - the side impact beam would run unbroken from front to rear. The doors would have sliding windows rather than roll-down windows - these windows would be easy for the driver to slide open with one hand without a need for power. The windows would be completely removable and stowable under the rear seat on hot days. The roof part of the doors would be removable canvas, replacable with fiberglass panels for winter conditions. An emergency release would allow easy removal of the windows for escape after a crash.

The floor of the car would be totally flat, due to the rear engine, allowing for 6-passenger seating, with the gearshift mounted either on the steering column or to the left of the driver (assuming left-hand drive). The handbrake would also be a lever to the left of the driver, like in old Volvo 140-series cars. A foot pedal is too cumbersome with a manual tranny, and an electronic brake is unnecessarily complex.

Suspension would be by double wishbones in front, and single A-arms plus damping struts in rear. A combination of a single spring across the car to control wheel movement in unison with a swaybar to control differential wheel movement will be used in place of the current 2-spring+swaybar system. Steering would be manual, with optional electric motor assistance. In the hybrid version, the front wheels should be able to turn up to 75 degrees from the straight position, allowing the wheel motors to "pull" the front of the car essentially sideways at slow speeds. Great for parking.

The car should have no more than three computers, really. One for engine control. Another for hybrid drive system (if fitted) control. A third for airbag control. Maybe a fourth for brake control if ABS is used. Things like climate control can remain manual. There's no shame, really, in having a lever pulling on a cable opening a heater valve or air door.

Total size shouldn't need to be greater than 15' long by 4' high by 5.5' wide. The body would take the form of a modified station wagon, with a small luggage compartment in front, and another larger trunk over the rear engine bay.

Lighting would remain incandescent in front and would use standard round headlights for ease of repair. A pair of auxilliary bright driving lights could also be fitted. Taillights, mounted at normal height, would also remain incandescent for ease of repair. The rear LED brake lights and turn signals would be mounted higher up on the car, making them less vulnerable in a crash. Front LED turn signals would be mounted

They have it already by mccrew · 2004-04-19 07:28 · Score: 1

Re: subscription cars

They have it already - it's called lease-purchase financing. You lease the vehicle, make payments, and then at the end you own - nothing! You get to either start the cycle all over again, leasing another car, or lining up financing to cover the residual value of the vehicle.

In a restaurant, you've heard of "Twice Cooked Chicken?" Well, this is kinda like "Twice Paid Car."

--
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.

Re:Oxymoron? by kidgenius · 2004-04-19 07:29 · Score: 1

Titanium is flammable as well. Interesting story: At my job, they had a gas turbine engine they built with titanium pieces inside. Something went wrong, the titanium caught on fire, and the engine slung this flaming titanium everywhere.

Re:Oxymoron? by kidgenius · 2004-04-19 07:32 · Score: 1

It's flammable, but not redicuously so. It takes a LOT of heat to cause magnesium to catch. Also, this isn't thin little strips of magneiusm ribbon, these are solid parts. Those will take an EXTREMELY high amount of heat for a LONG time to start fire. It's like comparing a pine needle to a log. Logs burn, but it takes more than just holding a match to a log to cause it to light.

Hummer, safe? by Ayanami+Rei · 2004-04-19 07:39 · Score: 1

My god the center of mass is gut-wrenchingly high on that piece of shit. There are plenty of other reasons to NOT get a Hummer. If you want a Hummer, get the real thing (AM General HMMWV, diesel), not the sluggish H2 (based on a Suburban).

--
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON

Re:Hummer, safe? by corinath · 2004-04-20 07:06 · Score: 1

When ever I think of a Hummer, I still picture the original, and in fact I would love to get my hands on one. I find the H2 to be a repulsive POS. I would never buy one.

--
Hockey - Canada's gift to the world

most larger scrap yards.... by zogger · 2004-04-19 07:51 · Score: 1

... are on a computerised system and if they can't get your used part on the spot, they can search a mutual database and find it for you and get it shipped in. There's even some online sources for that last I looked.

ME, you couldn't give me an expensive new car to use. I would take it of course and sell it as fast as possible. I'd rather own a 60's or 70's vehicle that is simpler and I can work on myself, and for what they want for some sort of average new car you can rebuild most of the older models to better-than new condition, probably for 1/2 that price actually.. I think more people would do that, too, if you could get the same 60 month note on them that they only offer for new or almost new models.

I just can't see in the future any sort of coolness factor to WOW I GOTZ ME A 92 COROLLA, ALL CHERRY!!1!! as opposed to-f'instance- WOW, I GOTZ ME A 69 BOSS MUSTANG, ALL CHERRY!!11!1.

New cars are disposable in some respects because they are so... undistinguishable, no character to most of them. That and what the article says.

Yes, I know, mileage and whatnot. That could be addressed with some newer technology being ported to the older cars, in particular they should have intakes/heads that make use of the variable activated solenoid valve systems, etc., and they really could re explore the adiabatic engine designs of smokey yunick and pogue for mileage increases. that stuff just worked and wasn't pie in the sky. That and just burn cleaner fuel to start with, and not pure petroleum products. Methanol and ethanol in particular are much cleaner burning without resorting to expensive doo dads that once b0rken are near impossible to fix cheaply, or even get analysed correctly. They make propane carbs now and are quite common, that could be used in conjunction with a methane system, burn that, get it from any biomass that can rot anaerobically.

SOME of the new technology is nice, a lot of it is busy work with little gain to it at huge expense.

And DON'T get me started on NeoConStar technology. Last I knew, the borg were the BAD GUYS.

Well, my opinion anyway. I'm gonna stick with my oldies for as long as possible. I LIKE 30 buck starters and 5 buck headlights, they work perfectly fine for a long time, then easily replaced. Stuff like that. If it really starts to suck,gas costs, enviro hassles, cost of vehicles, etc..well... I'll will quite literally switch to horses. Grow your own fuel, more or less environmentally friendly exhaust, and you can grow your own replacement vehicles. Something to be said for advanced bioengineering technology like that.

Re:most larger scrap yards.... by Cromac · 2004-04-19 08:38 · Score: 1

Well, my opinion anyway. I'm gonna stick with my oldies for as long as possible. I LIKE 30 buck starters and 5 buck headlights, they work perfectly fine for a long time, then easily replaced.
And $200 transmissions vs $3,000, or a complete engine rebuild for $1,000 plus warrenty vs $4,000...
Amen! I've often thought that you could build/restore a late 60's early 70's muscle car for what a average new car costs and still have the cheap repair bills 5 or 6 years later when things start to wear out and have an overall nicer car too. Gas mileage could be tough, but there have been plenty of articles about 500 horsepower muscle cars that get 25 MPG so it's not impossible.
Re:most larger scrap yards.... by thadeusg · 2004-04-19 10:47 · Score: 1

I agree with both the parent and gp, older cars are much cheaper to maintain. The only thing I disagree on is that I think late 80's to early 90's cars are more practical and safer than old muscle cars. EFI is your friend. You could have the cleanest, slickest looking Charger R/T on the planet, and I'd still laugh at you sitting there wasting gasoline and rubber. (And then pass you on the highway in my late 80's turbo import that gets 28mpg)

Any 500bhp muscle car that's getting 25MPG didn't come from GM, Ford, or Mopar (or the 60's or 70's for that matter). Carb+V8 != 25MPG no matter how well you tune it; not daily driven, and not practically driven.

You can really (as in real-life driving scenarios) still get 25mpg out of a decent late 80's car, and still have your $150 tranny, $30 starter and your $5 headlights. (And your 500hp if you know what cars to build) Not to mention, waaaayyyy better stock brakes, and stock handling better than any muscle car you can name. Hell, Shelby GT500's have leave (sp) springs and drum brakes in the rear!!

Oh yea, 3-point seatbelts, crumple zones, and airbags are cool too; so is ABS. Have fun when you rear-end someone and the steel hood of that Chevelle SS comes flying through the windshield and cuts your head off. ;)

partly the tariff but more.... by zogger · 2004-04-19 07:58 · Score: 1

...demand from overseas now, in particular, the next economic powerhouse of the world, china.
At least that is what I understand it to be. From what I have read china will surpass the US within ten more years or so, and I am betting it will be sooner than that. Especially when you consider the federal reserve funny buck is dropping in international "worth" as fast as it is.

I'm sitting on several tons now,back to metals, looks like crap, to me, cash in the bank making interest. I like metals, save them, precious to mundane and common, they are all valuable. Don't own a single paper or electronic stock though.....

*cough* by afxgrin · 2004-04-19 07:58 · Score: 1

Umm .... My 91 Honda Accord is at 411,000+ KM (255 383.56 miles) right now and is working great. It needed some work (engine tune up ... ) but if you do the regular oil changes and keep the engine tuned it will be fine and run efficiently.

Again - maintenance always helps and usually solves most of these problems. Sure I have a rust spot here or there, but that's what I get for not keeping my car cleaned better throughout the winter highway salt madness.....

(BTW: I've had nothing but bad luck with North American vehicles ... why would I ever want another one?)

More fundamental than that. by phriedom · 2004-04-19 08:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

I heard of a report (yes, someone actually studied this scientifically) that explained that the entire "blinding" problem of HID lamps can be entirely explained by that fact that funny colors of the HID lamps catch people's attention, and so they look at them. Don't look into the lights. If you look away from HIDs the same way you look away from halogens, then there is no problem.

People putting obnoxious driving lights on their crappy wannaberacecars was just as bad with halogens and xenons as it now is with HIDs.

--
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.

Re:More fundamental than that. by Buran · 2004-04-19 09:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've seen the same report that you probably did. And it does make a lot of sense and a lot of the problem probably is explainable by the tendency of humans to look at anything new or different - we're innately curious and anything unexpected gets investigated, whether or not it's detrimental to do so. Odd light of a strange color (xenons aren't really all that blue - they just look like they are compared to the yellowish tinge of filament-based lamps) falls into the category of "strange, needs to be looked at, is it going to hurt me or can I ignore it?".

This gradually changes over time as a new object becomes more and more common, and in fact, given enough time, what was once the norm later becomes unusual - who turns their head to look anymore at a diesel locomotive as a train goes by? It's the chuffing, steaming, pumping smoky steam locomotives that make us stop and stare these days. But ask your grandmother or grandfather which is more unusual, and they might tell you that it's the diesels that are "newfangled contraptions".

In other words, at some point sufficiently far in the future, most cars will have blue-tinged headlamp beams and we will actually look more at halogen headlamps because a car with the old-style halogens will be a classic collector's item, or just sufficiently different from the typical design practices of that time. It's already starting to happen - you can get HID headlamps on cars that are very close to entry level.

I have fog lamps on my car (though they are OEM units) and I plan to get a HID retrofit - they're not available from the factory on this car in the US - since I've spoken with people who have HIDs on their cars and looked at the cars myself and found that they do increase visibility quite a bit. However, I have done several things that most people DO NOT DO (whether through ignorance, laziness, or "it works better if I ignore that advice") which leads to some, but not all, of the current furor:

- Headlamps follow the European standard - they are engineered to focus light on the road and not scatter it around like DOT headlamps do; yes, that's right -- outdated lighting standards are largely to blame!

- The headlamps have been properly aimed and the aim checked, including looking at the car at night from the position of an oncoming driver - this should be done from time to time as vibration and road conditions can knock the lights out of alignment

- The headlights are equipped with electrical levelers that allow them to be aimed downward if the back of the car is weighed down with a heavy load - this is a must-have in Europe if you have HIDs, but not in the US - again, outdated requirements

The car also has fog/driving lights and a rear fog light.

- The front and rear fog lights are only used in inclement weather or in areas with little lighting, not left on all the time to look nice

- Yellow bulbs are used so they actually do what they should - i.e. pierce fog (and yes, they do work.)

Oh, by the way ... xenons and HIDs are the same thing. Gas discharge lights often incorporate xenon-filled capsules in their bulbs, which is why they are commonly called "xenon headlamps" and "high intensity discharge" is the technical term for the most common method used to create the brilliant arc. (xenon/HID lamps don't have filaments.)

--
i am a soviet space shuttle
Re:More fundamental than that. by boots@work · 2004-04-19 10:35 · Score: 2, Informative

They distract me because the blue/pink tinges look like police lights in the rear-view mirror...

Repair or replace -- environmental aspects? by a24061 · 2004-04-19 08:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

In the UK, some environmentalists advocate measures to encourage motorists to get rid of their old, polluting "bangers" and buy newer models with better emissions and mileage.

On the other hand, I'm sure that a new car produces a lot of pollution before it's even started -- because of the manufacturing processes (plastics, steel, aluminium, etc.). (I've even heard criticism of requiring catalytic converters because the metallurgy produces a lot of pollution -- although I personally believe this comes from cranks who think that catalytic converters reduce their power and "performance"). And of course disposing of old cars produces pollution too.

So where's the balance?

Volvo websites - www.brickboard.com www.ipdusa.com by b0s0z0ku · 2004-04-19 08:28 · Score: 1

Old Volvos rawk! I currently have an '88 240 wagon that's never broke down on my since I bought it a year ago:

No affiliation with any of these sites, but I recommend:
http://www.brickboard.com for technical advice on Volvos (anything from 1960 to now, basically)

http://www.ipdusa.com for performance suspension components and other tuning stuff for the older Volvos. With appropriately up-sized swaybars and poly suspension bushings, an old 240 becomes quite a good handling car. They also sell performance camshafts for the 4 cylinder engines that add a little bit of power at the expense of having to use premium gas.

http://www.turbobricks.com for tech advice on turbocharged Volvos or adding a turbo to an older Volvo.

-b0s0z0ku

Re:I need those headlights by BK425 · 2004-04-19 08:44 · Score: 1

the headlight bit of this story is absurd, dunno where they got that but if the original poster thinks that you will believe that HID headlights normally cost 3k to replace... they're either painfully ignorant or think that you are. They are expensive yes, and more energy efficient and far longer lived (and many many more advantages).
Oh, and while I'm ranting, all the folks who think they should control what other people drive should... run their own lives first.
Additional free advice: when driving at night look at the road and the right road edge, not directly into other peoples headlights ;-)
And finally, since my newest vehicle is 20 years old, no I do not have HID lights myself.

Re:... I have a Passat too. by ProfBooty · 2004-04-19 08:44 · Score: 1

i've had my passat for 4 years and 42k miles. zero problems so far. survived being t-boned. Costs:just maintenance items, which I do myself.

--
Bring back the old version of slashdot.

Posable eMechanics by Doc+Ruby · 2004-04-19 08:52 · Score: 1

Making these cars more expensive doesn't make them more disposable. It makes their mechanics more valuable. Like in Stephenson's _Snow Crash_, we might just wake up as a nation of mechanics (and 1337 pizza delivery). Different subsystems in the cars interacting in diagnosable and tweakable configs means work for humans diagnosing and configuring. And when the logic, sensors and actuators are all field programmable, American cars might be the platform in which parallel processing, dataflow, evolved realtime optimizations.

--

--
make install -not war

Jumping to Conclusions by hal2814 · 2004-04-19 08:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

I think this article needs to calm down from its panic mode. Disposable cars will not be the result of making cars more expensive to build. I don't think that the author has ever dealt with an insurance company.

The car mentioned throughout a good part of the article is BMW. I've owned two BMWs in the past. I also had a friend who owned a BMW. We always assumed that if one of us wrecked our car, the insurance company would total it out. It turned out to be true in his case. In my case, they didn't total it out but there was only paint damage. (Both of my BMWs died peacefully of old age.)

My point is that insurance companies will not gamble on a few thousand dollars when they can just give you the car's current value and still make money selling the car off to a surplus broker. Any car with a high resale value will a target for premature totalling out, even without expensive components because:

$pay_you_off_money - $get_from_wholesale_buyer > $cost_to_fix_car

I can gaurantee you that if BMWs start getting totaled out over airbag costs too frequently, somebody is going to start manufacturing (relatively) cheap aftermarket airbags so that car dealers can snatch up these "totaled" cars from the insurance companies and turn a nice profit reselling them. If not, then it will be the BMW dealerships who snatch these cars back up and refit them with airbags since they get a break in price.

Also, I imagine that somebody is going to figure out how to fashion a steel bracket to hang their radiator from in new F-150s once theirs breaks and they learn that a factory replacement costs $300.

And don't forget that all of these new expensive components will come down in price over time and some car companies will not use the parts until they are cheap. Just look at Fuel Injection, Power Steering, Anti-Lock Brakes, etc...

Re:Don't put all the blame on economics either. by Cromac · 2004-04-19 08:55 · Score: 1

Today's cars, however, typically get better mileage while having more horsepower (except SUV's).

Wrong, that should be especially SUV's. Look at the horsepower todays SUV's have, high 200's to low 300's. 10-15 years ago those SUV's would have had 100-150 horsepower, maybe. Mileage has only increased a small amount but horsepower is way up.

Great... by CheeseTroll · 2004-04-19 09:02 · Score: 1

Plumber-Butt 3.0, here to take a look at that clog...

--
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.

Re:Oxymoron? by Rich0 · 2004-04-19 09:05 · Score: 1

In theory if you wanted to take out one of these you'd just need a small magnesium fuse - which can be lit easily with a match. That would probably burn hot enough to set off the rest of the car, which would probably burn QUITE spectacularly.

Kind of like thermite - takes some heat to get it going, but once it is going, it is REALLY going...

Cars by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 09:09 · Score: 1, Interesting

"One solution, btw, is not to abandon the better quality parts, but to create an open parts standard. The more cars that use a specific part, the more generic offerings there are and the cheaper those offerings become. There's also more parts available from used auto parts catalogues."

This guy is DEAD ass on Take a look at the Semi industry, for YEARS you have been able to swap engines and drive components between a freightliner, Mack, Kenworth whatever. when they need a part they NEED IT NOW not a damn dealer runaround as you find in regular automotive.

Just Imagine by ReidMaynard · 2004-04-19 09:10 · Score: 2, Funny

"Flying" disposable cars! I can't wait! I'm sure they are just around the corner!

--
-- www.globaltics.net

Political discussion for a new world

Solar Power Tower by monkeyfamily · 2004-04-19 09:10 · Score: 1

We've actually seen this before - it's true that guided reflectors are the way to go for solar power generation, but you don't want to aim them at a water column if you need electricity after dark. Instead, use the light to head up molten salt, which can hold lots of thermal energy for a fair amount of time, then pipe the salt past water pipes to make the steam to run your turbines. Yes, it seems more indirect but you can keep to power flowing up to 100% of the time without relying on batteries. Keeping the energy in thermal form and transferring it from one medium to another is more efficient than converting it from thermal to kinetic to electrical to chemical (when you store it in a battery), then back to electrical. Here's the extensive (though a couple years old) Boeing Solar Power Tower page, and here's an update on applications of the tech from people planning the nuke dump in New Mexico.

A simpler kind of solar tower is a chimney made of lightweight drawing air through a sprawling greenhouse. The floor of the greenhouse absorbs heat all day and reradiates it at night to drive turbines continuously. Australia may soon have a gargantuan solar chimney built for them by a company called Enviromission.

Utopia by heffrey · 2004-04-19 09:16 · Score: 1

My idea of Utopia is when every single person on the planet has their own personal selection cars. A sporty number for fun trips. A people carrier for when your are taking family and friends. An SUV for off road expeditions.

We humans really have made the planet a wonderful place to live. If only we can achieve enough wealth and prosperity to make this dream a reality for all mankind then that would be something to shout about. :-(

Re:Not only obsolescence, but safety..... by phuturephunk · 2004-04-19 09:22 · Score: 1

I don't understand why someone made this flamebait, it was very informative.
Being an on again off again import tuner enthusiast, I had an idea about cast vs. forged rims, but I never knew aluminum's properties behaved like that under the stresses that you mentioned. I find that kind of ironic considering all the idiot teenagers driving pimped out 3 series bimwahs all over the suburb I call home.
..Someone mod this up..

As the old adage goes... by gillbates · 2004-04-19 09:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should...."

A computer can more optimally adjust the ignition timing, fuel to air ratios, accessory loading, etc, than merely mechanical components. However, that doesn't mean that a computer controlled engine is immune to failure; it depends on the ethics and design principles of the engineers who built it. That said, computers have definitely improved the driving experience of the average driver.

Because the computer runs the engine, changing ignition timing or fuel delivery is as simple as replacing an EPROM or (possibly?) uploading new software. But more, some engine electronics enable capabilities that mechanical systems could _never_ provide. For example:

The alternator is now controlled by the computer. Since the computer can know both the alternator's field current and the battery voltage, the computer itself could diagnose a battery which is losing its ability to hold a charge before the battery quits completely. Additionally, it can monitor the voltage drop and cranking rpm of the engine - which again, can determine if the starting circuit is developing resistance before the vehicle won't start at all.
Some more advanced systems, like Cadillac's Northstar V8's, can run without any coolant whatsoever. When the computer detects a catastrophic coolant loss, it fires alternate banks of cylinders - the result is that the "dead" power cycles pull air through the engine, cooling it down. While you won't have air conditioning, at least you'll be able to make it to a repair shop.
Even basic systems now have the ability to prevent engine damage by shutting the engine down when the temperature is too high or oil pressure is insufficient.
Computers can use the wheel sensors used for antilock brakes to determine if a tire is low and alert the driver: a tire with low pressure has a lower effective radius and will turn slightly faster than the others when the car is moving in a straight line.

There's a saying among Chevy enthusiasts, "Those who'd rather push a Ford than drive a Chevy usually do...." Yes, it is true that you can fix vintage vehicles much more easily than computerized ones, and if you buy one, you might just end up fixing it more often than you'd like. What it comes down to is that at a certain point, it is going to cost more to keep an older vehicle running than it would to buy a new one.

--
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.

Re:As the old adage goes... by evilviper · 2004-04-19 16:37 · Score: 1

Since the computer can know both the alternator's field current and the battery voltage, the computer itself could diagnose a battery which is losing its ability to hold a charge before the battery quits completely.

An occasional look at an old-fashioned battery charge meter will tell me if a battery is failing to hold a charge, or if the alternator is failing. Sure, a computer can do it now, but I could before, so I don't see any advances here.

Even basic systems now have the ability to prevent engine damage by shutting the engine down when the temperature is too high or oil pressure is insufficient.

Wiring the thermostat to the key could have done the same thing for the past 50 years. That's about as basic as it gets. No computer required. We prefer not to have those kinds of "features" because often the system will have a malfunction, and will screw you over. I hate it when my car assumes I want the headlights on, so I'd be furious if a broken wire somewhere told my car it was burning up and wouldn't allow me to start it.

What it comes down to is that at a certain point, it is going to cost more to keep an older vehicle running than it would to buy a new one.

You are correct, but I don't think anybody is advocating buying an old car, rather than a new one. What people are so upset about is that car manufacturers are using your addage against us. Yes, they improve their cars JUST ENOUGH that it's worth upgrading. However, they often do things in an overly expensive and failure-prone way, for no reason other than to force you to buy a new car in a few years, rather than keeping the one you've got.

Your example is a bit over-exaggerated though, as you don't need to compare a current car with one made in the 60s. You could compare cars made today with ones made just a decade or two ago, and you'll see that fuel effeciency has made little if any progress, except in a select few, like the hybrids, and Geo Metros.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Dodges are Macs by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-19 09:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

Dodge makes good cars, the problem is that mechanics don't know how to fix them. They use Dextron III ATF instead of chrysler automatic transmission fluid and bam, there goes the transmission. The fundamentals are the same but the implementation is different. I've seen so many examples of incompetent mechanics destroying cars...this is just one of many examples. The mechanic, even if he knew afterward, would not own up to it. Really mechanics don't want to see a car more than 10 years old, if they see one they try to get rid of it because they don't want problems. They don't want to spend the time to troubleshoot, and 80s cars with emissions equipment trouble many cases cannot be fixed legally because the smog equipment is so shoddy and expensive (most people rip it out but mechanics can get in big trouble for doing that). That is why you need to either fix it yourself, or sell it to someone who will fix it for themself.

The japanese make excellent cars also, late model japanese cars being better than late model american cars. However, anybody who doesn't know about the amazing chrysler slant six engine really has not lived the automotive existence. Google search chrysler slant six and learn about indestructability.

Yeah but ... by willtsmith · 2004-04-19 09:43 · Score: 1

10 years ago, you might have claimed that carpenters can't be outsourced either. Yet we find that former carpenter jobs are now going to illegal immigrants.

Is the plumbing trade THAT much more difficult that an illegal cannot do the work like most other trades (bricklayer, electrician, gardener , etc...)

You can certainly fit a LOT of plumbers and mechanics on an airplane. You can fit just about as many as all those programmers they've shipped over to the US.

Finally, the latest tech is ALWAYS more expensive. Once you produce stuff in volume, it gets WAY cheaper. The auto industries BIGGEST cost is the lack of standardized and parts and mechanisms. They've started picking up with "platform technologies". That is, they produce a chassis and engine package and then slap different shells on top of it.

The Boyd Coddington effort to make standard part interconnection could cut a LOT of cost out of the auto industry. The use of MORE standardized parts like air filters, oil filters, transmissions etc... could help as well.

The auto industry will naturally resist. They've had standardization in their power for a VERY long time. They play the same game as the multiple vendors of different memory card formats. They want to make money sell parts.

--
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!

Re:Not only obsolescence, but safety..... by serbanp · 2004-04-19 09:49 · Score: 1

Who is the idiot who modded this as "flamebait"? The post was at least informative! Serban

Yeah Right by Tedium+Unleased · 2004-04-19 09:53 · Score: 1

'Specialist technicians need advanced reading, problem-solving, and basic electronics skills.... The best people to find are those who have worked in the IT [information technology] industry.'

Maybe they're the best in that they won't find or push for a real solution to the problem. I see the fit now - what other profession is as good at making sure the things they work on is hard to fix?

my analysis... by zogger · 2004-04-19 09:59 · Score: 1

..which I first developed around 5 years ago, indicates to me china will be forced to go agressive expansionist before 2010, at least to the point of insurung an adequate oil supply. and I don't think they intend to pay for it, of if so, they will be swapping goods for oil.
they are increasing their military at 10% a year, all geared towards force-projection capabilities, and consider assymetrical warfare to be a tight integrated component to their entire battleplans.

Not a whole lotta places with oil around then, either...

"Personal Car"... Stopped production last year. by waferhead · 2004-04-19 10:04 · Score: 1

It was called the Volkswagen Beetle;-)

I hear it was quite popular in some circles.

Pretty much everything you can imagine has been, and is still being done to Bugs.

Actually it takes more energy to run a car... by winwar · 2004-04-19 10:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

than it takes to make it.

Yep, you read that correctly. The amount of fuel that powers the car is the primary energy expenditure. I didnt realize that until I looked at some of the literature.

Some numbers from a Life Cycle Inventory (USCAR AMP Project) noted Paper 982160 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Operational Phase: 84% of the energy
Material Production and Manufacturing: 14%
The rest would include mining and disposal.

Granted, one can argue about environmental impacts of the various activities, but the LCI does not deal with this.

This is based on a "life" of 120,000 years of a 1995 sedan (average of Intrepid/Lumina/Taurus). But your Volvo isn't going to be much different.

Oh, and cars running on catalytic converters with unleaded gas tend to have fewer emissions than those running on leaded fuel without cat. converters. :) This has been demonstrated. Not sure what carcinogens you are referring to (perhaps additives such as MTBE? - but I belive gasoline or some of the substances in gasoline such as benzene are).

You are of course aware of the massive amounts of lead released into the environment by the use of leaded fuels? They are found in lake sediments anywhere powered boats where/are used. Lead released by motor vehicles also had a habit of accumulating in people who lived near roadways...causing lead poisoning

Re:Actually it takes more energy to run a car... by DeltaZulu0 · 2004-04-19 15:54 · Score: 1

I can't stand these lead arguments. Mt. St. Helens released more lead into the air than a thousand years worth of traffic and people didn't start dying off in droves. I'm not saying lead isn't bad, merely that there is more lead from other (naturally occuring) sources other than us. Every time a volcano "burps" it outdoes us. Don't use the lead argument.
Re:Actually it takes more energy to run a car... by Lozzer · 2004-04-19 23:50 · Score: 1

I guess you meant miles when you said 120,000 years? Otherwise its not so impressive that 14% of the energy still went into manufacturing :-)

--
Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
Re:Actually it takes more energy to run a car... by Gordonjcp · 2004-04-20 05:34 · Score: 1

My point is more that with modern engine designs you don't really need anti-knock additives at all. It would seriously help if oil companies sold cleaner petrol - "cleaner greener unleaded" is a scam to sell very dirty petrol, loaded with sulphur compounds.

Lead poisoning found in people who live in cities almost certainly has more to do with lead water pipes. The tiny amount of lead that actually makes it out of the tailpipe (90% deposits out in the first couple of feet of exhaust pipe, cut an old downpipe open and see for yourself) isn't in a form that is easily taken up by living things. It's probably still not a good idea to have it, but it's not metallic lead (very harmful), it's more lead carbonate (funny ceramic-y stuff).

Your supposed to lease it by DigiShaman · 2004-04-19 10:14 · Score: 1

I was bored one weekend and decided to take a look at some of the BMWs at my local dealership. They sales man told me that if I qualified, I could be on a ten year car payment plan! TEN YEARS!!??? Fuck that. I might as well lease the fucker, drive low milage, then hand over the keys for a new one.

I honestly believe this is the new game in America. They WANT you to lease the car so they can recoop most of they profit from you. Then, they ship that same car overseas. Wash..rense..repeat.

Folks, don't even bother with trying to OWN a $40 car. Your better of leasing it. They set the price that way for the very reason.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Well, I am a mechanic (amateur), and ... by nukenerd · 2004-04-19 10:22 · Score: 1

... and an engineer (professional) and I prefer the steel control arms. The alloy ones will fail first - from fatigue aggravated by salt corrosion. In fact the life of either will be determined by the life of the swivel joints at their ends, not the structure as you imply.

You also make the mistake of assuming price = quality. You talk of cheap American car parts. I dream of them - I am very unusual in UK in that I own (and work on) an American car (Jeep Cherokee). The price of its spares here is astronomical, I can tell you. The price of spares is all to do with what the market can stand, and in UK the Jeep is considered exotic, hence the prices. The quality is OK though, and it is the most reliable car I have ever known.

I also do repairs on other family cars - British Rover, German VW and French Renault. I am not impressed by the quality of the VW build, nor its reliablity despite the hype around this marque. Electrical wiring is nearly as thin as cotton thread, and a plastic chamber in the fuel line is so feeble that a stub pipe snapped off it while I was detaching the hoses to it. So little thought seems to have been given to the need to work on the car during its life, that I am suprised that they didn't weld up the bonnet (hood).

It is a hobby of the British to criticise Rovers (and most other things British), but I would say it has the best build quality of the bunch.

It does not take much to keep a car going for many years. I reckon I am a master at it. The wear of bearings etc that makes a car feel old, lose oil etc, is only a tiny % of its total mass, and these wearing parts (like those control arm swivels) are or could be made easily replacable. The other factor is rust, which makers could easily stop with galvanising or making certain parts replacable. For example the bodywork parts of the Land Rovers of the 1960's can be replaced by any competent small workshop (all flat plates rivetted to frames) and many of 40-50 years old can be seen in daily heavy use in the country areas of the UK.

Re:Well, I am a mechanic (amateur), and ... by afidel · 2004-04-19 15:05 · Score: 1

While many American's would make fun of most things British I doubt any smart ones would knock Rover. The Range Rover was THE offroad vehicle around the world until the Toyota Land Cruiser became more reliable and slightly more luxurious at the low end.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Expensive headlights by frdmfghtr · 2004-04-19 10:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Even if your car remains accident-free, some of today's high-tech parts can leave you with big repair bills. The celebrated find for car thieves these days is xenon high-intensity-discharge headlights. They can cost up to $3,000 each. That's just for the part, not labor.

If a car costs $30k, a pair of headlights is 20% of the cars value. WTF?!?!? There has to be some serious (and I mean SERIOUS) retail markup on those things, or else the cost reflects not just the bulb but the entire headlight assembly as well.

"Activating" a headlight assembly from the manufacturer after a repair? What, are these things made by Microsoft? (had to say it, sorry)

I used to think it might be neat to get a set of these...not anymore.

--
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?

Love that plastic technology... by Mulletproof · 2004-04-19 10:25 · Score: 1

Technology Makes New Cars Too Expensive to Fix

Funny, I thought it was those $2,000 plastic fenders...

--
You need a FREE iPod Nano

Re:I need those headlights by DigiShaman · 2004-04-19 10:28 · Score: 2, Funny

If I have to drive at night on 290 between Houston and Austin, I will wear my Oakleys to keep myself from being blinded. I honestly don't see how these HID lights are DOT industry approved. They are way to bright in my opinion.

The only thing missing on my nightly trips is the song "Sunglasses at Night" by Corey Hart playing in the background.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Be careful with methanol by ChrisMaple · 2004-04-19 10:48 · Score: 1

Surprisingly, methanol is very corrosive to certain metals, such as magnesium. If you're unlucky enough to have the wrong metals in your fuel system, you're screwed.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Like adding chips to replacement printer carts by Retired+Replicant · 2004-04-19 10:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Some of this stuff sounds like auto manufacturers are trying to make sure replacemnt parts can only be ordered from the manufacturer. It the same bullsh*t printer companies were trying to do by sticking smart chips into their replacement printer cartridges. $3000 headlights that the manufacturer has to "activate" are a total scam.

Old Cars are great :) by ruckc · 2004-04-19 10:50 · Score: 1

This is the exact reason I drive a '78 El Camino, its carborated... no computer except my sound system. It has plenty of power to outrun the new electic POSes. It is still a small pickup... When It gets damaged its not a big deal...

Where'd I put those mod points? by Civil_Disobedient · 2004-04-19 10:55 · Score: 1

In the old days, with a sliderule handling 2 or 3 significant figures, you'd round up forces and round down material strengths.

EXACTLY.

Not to mention, though it seems you already have, that the way in which businesses manage to pull off planned obsolesence nowadays isn't like it was in the 50s and 60s. Back then, they'd just throw ads at you saying you weren't a real man unless you had the new (whatever).

Nowadays, they still throw the ads at you insulting your masculinity, but they also have Ph.D's working overtime to manufacture cars that break down the hour after your warranty has expired. CV joints are one thing -- body rust is another. Take an old Chevy or Ford and you've got enough steel to work with for the next couple hundred years, providing you've got enough Bondo. :)

And as this article points out, it's far, far more difficult to work on your car these days than it has been. You can buy yourself a 60's American car and fix it up for peanuts (if you know what you're doing). Hell, the experience can be an educational, to boot.

And at the end of it, you've get a boss Mustang with a 429 that I can fix with real tools anytime I have to, while they've only got a crappy Civic with an "aero-wing" glued on the back that requires a diagnostic computer to tell you what you already know is wrong with it. Easy choice.

Re:Oxymoron? by Myglaren · 2004-04-19 10:59 · Score: 1

Indeed! and surely very expensive in comparison to most viable alternatives.

Re:Cars by gerardrj · 2004-04-19 11:05 · Score: 1

Open parts standards are fine when style is not a significant issue. A working truck is purchased not for looks, but for power, size, efficiency, and reliability. The requirements lend themselves to standardized parts.

Within a consumer vehicle family there are many parts that are standardized. Volkswagen, Audi and Porche all use the same parts across likes, ex: the Audi A4, VW Golf, Jetta, and Passat all use the same 1.8L Turbo Engine.
I recall my 1985 Buick Skylark was built on the same "platform" and used the same engine, suspension, transmission and such as the Cavalier, X10, and several other GM vehicles.

Standardized parts in the end lower costs, so manufacturers pump that savings in to more expensive custom parts to distinguish the now all-too-similar vehicles. Otherwise, why buy the Cadillac when you can get most of the same components in the Oldsmobile at half the cost?

--
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people

John Z. DeLorean by istewart · 2004-04-19 11:16 · Score: 2, Informative

One of the reasons (excuses?) John Z. DeLorean gave for the stainless steel skin on the automobile that bore his name was that it would never rust, thus avoiding what DeLorean saw as built-in obsolescence in cars made by conventional manufacturers with conventional materials. He backed that up by advertising a 25-year warranty on the car's body.

It might not be easier, but wouldn't it be a significantly better investment to build cars meant to last as long as possible rather than cars meant to be thrown away?

Not true... by cr0sh · 2004-04-19 11:21 · Score: 1

The second most polluting time in a car's life is when it's scrapped.

I agree with you on your first point - it takes a LOT of resources to make a car, and the production of those raw materials (and the energy used) is HUGE. With that said...

When an automobile is "scrapped", 99.9% of the car is recycled. I don't know about you, but I have been to scrap yards and auto yards in my life, and every time I go, I am amazed.

Amazed at the level of recycling: For an automobile, first all of the fluids are drained from the car. For those fluids that can be (gasoline and oils, mainly), they are recycled back into the oil industry and other oil-based manufacturers (asphalt, and similar, mainly). Then, any parts which may have resale or remanufacturing value are removed - typically the engine, transmission, radiator, drive shafts, etc - all removed, and tested. Some are set aside for direct sales out of the yard (fun places to go - a section here for engines, another here for driveshafts, over there for chassis' - on and on). Others are put in a pile to be sent on to remanufacturers, who will take the parts apart, recycle the bad parts as scrap metal, clean and repair the rest, and sell those to places like AutoZone and Checker. Seats are kept, dashboards are kept, motors and such are kept. Whatever is left over is then sent on to the shredder.

Yeah, that's right - they SHRED the car. First the car is mashed flat (they don't do blocks anymore, I don't think). Up a conveyor belt, over and down into the hopper. At the bottom of the hopper are these huge hammers turning at crazy speeds (you would not want to fall in), which litterally pounds the vehicle apart. Over a series of grates to separate large chunks from small chunks, the chunks go through a series of magnets and air jets to separate light materials from heavy materials, ferrous from non-ferrous. All sorted into piles.

These piles are then sent on by rail for recycling - generally via ship (not much smelting done here in the States anymore) to China or something, where they are re-smelted into raw materials which we buy back to make into - TADA! - new cars.

Now, I am not saying that no pollution occurs because of this, nor am I saying that it is an "energy efficient" process. But it isn't nearly as bad as going with completely raw materials, and in a lot of cases, those remanufactured/recycled "whole parts" keep existing cars going on the road, sometimes long, long after the model (and sometimes the "dealer" - think International Pickups) has ceased to exist - thus helping the environment even more.

It simply isn't the days of throw-it-away-and-bury-it (never really was with automobiles - the automobile industry is a major recycler, always has been). Regular scrapyards do a similar thing, but with all sorts of scrap metal, not just vehicles (though many don't do one-off to-the-public sales of stuff, like many auto-yards will)...

--
Reason is the Path to God - Anon

writing off the car is the whole point by boots@work · 2004-04-19 11:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

What an incredibly whiny article!

The major thrust of car safety design for the last 10-20 years has been that the car should be written off to protect the occupants. Therefore: airbags, crumple zones, seat-belt pre-tensioners and tension limiters, collapsing steering columns, staged failure of structural elements...

The BMW quoted in the article performed very well: the occupant was uninjured, the passenger cell was not breached. The damage looks minor specifically because the structural components are meant to be hardest and fail last. In that minute, the owner spent $30k to prevent their child from being killed or paralyzed. (Whether they still think that was a good deal is another question...)

If they'd been driving an older car, it might well have been repairable after a rollover: more steel, more parts that bend plastically rather than breaking or crumpling, no airbags. On the other hand, if they'd been driving an older car, they might have been dead.

It's pretty simple: if you don't want to write off your car, don't flip it over!

"A good landing is one you walk away from. A perfect landing is where they can use the plane again."

Re:writing off the car is the whole point by evilviper · 2004-04-19 16:45 · Score: 1

The major thrust of car safety design for the last 10-20 years has been that the car should be written off to protect the occupants. Therefore: airbags, crumple zones, seat-belt pre-tensioners and tension limiters, collapsing steering columns, staged failure of structural elements...

That is absolutely true, but that only applies to high speed crashes. Your car should not crumple when you hit something going 5MPH, you should not incur thousands of dollars in damage, etc. The problem is that they take this too far.

I saw a 15MPH car accident first hand. The minivan that got hit was undrivable. The wheel-well was driven into the back tire. The whole back-end was pushed down. The back window was broken out. The hatch-back was seriously damaged, and would no longer close. All this for the stupidity of the car company to fail to include a cheap bumper that would have incured all the damage, and changed it to a trivial event.

And additionally, no car I've seen made in the last couple decades has a strong structure. I've been seriously thinking about putting roll-bars into my car because the body is so incredibly weak.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:writing off the car is the whole point by boots@work · 2004-04-19 17:14 · Score: 1

Well, the article starts out talking about a kid completely rolling a car, which is definitely in the domain of caring about survival, not repair costs.

I agree it would be nice if we could get replaceable rubber-style bumpers to protect against carpark accidents. But 15MPH is not so slow. You'd need a pretty large bumper to absorb it with no other damage, if you could do it at all. 6.7 m/s is equivalent to dropping the car headfirst onto concrete from about 900mm; you'd expect it to make a pretty loud noise.

And additionally, no car I've seen made in the last couple decades has a strong structure.

Really *none*? What are you comparing too?

I've seen a photo of a BMW M3 that flipped on a racetrack at >>100mph. The engine compartment is nearly broken off, but the passenger cell is intact. I'd call that strong -- and strong in the right place, too. No human has a right to survive those kind of energies, but the driver was reported to have walked away.

There was a 6-car low-speed rear-ender outside my office a while ago. It was a pretty interesting demonstration of different construction models: the Kia mini-car folded up by more than a foot and the Mercedes just dinged its bumper. (Possibly the bumper would be more expensive. :-)
Re:writing off the car is the whole point by boots@work · 2004-04-19 17:28 · Score: 1

Oops, it's been too long since I did calculus.

Assuming I got it right the second time: A collision at that speed is equivalent to falling 2.3m onto concrete. I'd be surprised if any bumper could sustain that without damaging the car itself.

I'd be pretty leery of riding in a car during such an experiment. Even at such a relatively low speed compared to normal traffic, I'd be pretty happy for any protection I could get by having airbags go off or the car frame get fucked up.

While I have my dx/dt out: a head-on crash from 100kmh is like falling 40m. And 100kmh can seem so slow..
Re:writing off the car is the whole point by evilviper · 2004-04-19 18:50 · Score: 1

Well, the article starts out talking about a kid completely rolling a car, which is definitely in the domain of caring about survival, not repair costs.

The circumstances of that accident aren't really the subject. The subject is how car manufacturers are making cars more costly to repair. In that case, perhaps the cost was justified. Then again, I've seen cars that have rolled in a 10MPH accident (VERY steep embankment), so I can't say for certain without details of the accident. In any case, let's just forget about this kid.

You'd need a pretty large bumper to absorb it with no other damage, if you could do it at all.

You obviously haven't spent much time on old cars. Bumpers are great things, and used to be able to handle very powerful forces. It's a molded piece of solid steel, that is connected, through other sttrong pieces, to the frame of your car. At 15MPH, you'd expect to dent the bumper to the point you'd want to have it replaced, but it would be a very inexpensive replacement. Plus it's very EASY to replace, requires no special tools or skills.

The engine compartment is nearly broken off, but the passenger cell is intact.

The engine is designed to be destroyed, so it breaking off isn't very significant. BTW, a 100MPH crash isn't all that incredible. Serious damage to the car is expected, but there's no reason it should have to be completely scrapped.

If you've ever watched an IIHS controlled test crash, you see what really happens in crashes. The passenger compartment does not stay intact, rather, it bends and contorts around the passengers. By a matter of extensive testing, and good designs, they've been able to get a wimpy structure to be destroyed in ways that won't seriously injure the passengers, but will deform very seriously, and that's only at 35MPH.

It's also not an exact science. Sometimes when they test crash a new car, they will find out that the passenger compartment crumples poorly, and may crush and break your legs, or sometimes the results are even worse.

Have a crash test with an older car, and you'll see that the car will stay completely in-tact. It is more safe for the engine compartment to crumble if the crash was above 35MPH or so, but the passenger compartment should at least get built strong. Unfortunately, it isn't. That's the whole reason you need the jaws of life... Passenger compartments just aren't built with strength anymore, which is why a roll-over is so often fatal these days (no structure to keep the roof from collapsing in on you).

If you still don't believe me, just see what happens when a Semi truck flips and lands on top of a car... The car is instantly crushed, because cars just aren't built as strong as they used to be.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:writing off the car is the whole point by boots@work · 2004-04-19 19:10 · Score: 1

Have a crash test with an older car, and you'll see that the car will stay completely in-tact.

And the passengers may well be killed by hitting the dash or steering wheel at nearly full speed. Try dropping an egg in a metal box vs a cardboard egg carton.

I couldn't care less whether the car stays intact. The question is whether the chances of people surviving are greater or less than they used to be. From what I've read, they are greater, but if you have a different reference I'd be interested to see it.
Re:writing off the car is the whole point by boots@work · 2004-04-19 19:27 · Score: 1

You obviously haven't spent much time on old cars. Bumpers are great things, and used to be able to handle very powerful forces. It's a molded piece of solid steel, that is connected, through other strong pieces, to the frame of your car. At 15MPH, you'd expect to dent the bumper to the point you'd want to have it replaced, but it would be a very inexpensive replacement.

No, I have to admit I have not. I would still be surprised if all the damage was confined to the bumper, but you may be right.

BTW, a 100MPH crash isn't all that incredible.

I said "much much more than 100MPH", but anyhow: it's 3 times faster than the NCAP tests. I think it would have been nearly unheard of to survive it in the cars of 25 years ago.
Re:writing off the car is the whole point by evilviper · 2004-04-19 21:24 · Score: 1

And the passengers may well be killed by hitting the dash or steering wheel at nearly full speed.

You are missing most of the point of my posts. I'm not saying that crumple-zones are a bad thing. I'm not saying that older cars are safer than newer cars. What I am saying, is that it would be much safer for the passenger compartment to be made MUCH stronger.

I would, in fact, be willing to bet that older cars were safer in roll-overs, because, as I've said, the bodies were much stronger. So the roof wouldn't collapse in on you when you do roll the car over, like it will in newer cars. Read my last post again, I went all through how car companies are trying to get along with weak passenger compartments, and the problems with that design. Also, you are probably safer in an older car in the event that you are in a driver's side collision. The materials that makeup the doors in current cars are quite weak, and there cumpling doesn't help anybody.

The question is whether the chances of people surviving are greater or less than they used to be.

No, the question is, with a trivial design improvement, could the survival rate be even better? I have been making the point that we would be much safer if the body around the passenger area was reinforced until it's at least as strong as older cars were. You can maintain your crumple zones, and air bags, but I really want the passenger compartments to be improved.

the passengers may well be killed by hitting the dash or steering wheel at nearly full speed.

Well, the problem in the old days was that the dash board and steering wheel were much too hard. I think, if you put the internals of a current car in the body of a classic car, it would be quite safe. I don't believe crumple zones have as much of an impact on survivablity as car companies would have you believe.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:writing off the car is the whole point by boots@work · 2004-04-19 23:47 · Score: 1

No, the question is, with a trivial design improvement, could the survival rate be even better?

I would guess not: there is a reasonably competitive market for cars. If there were *trivial* changes that could make safety much better, then you would expect it to happen, at least in luxury cars. I can believe that there are changes that are tough tradeoffs or hard to get right or expensive.

I would, in fact, be willing to bet that older cars were safer in roll-overs

That is a pretty interesting question. In principle you could answer it from statistics, though in a little bit of web research I can't find them. Since rollovers seem responsible for a fair fraction of fatalities you would expect there to be a fair selective pressure to improve handling of them.

Since mass-market cars now travel at 75+mph the domain over which they are required to be safe is wider than it once was. So I can believe maybe they get more damaged in a 35mph rollover as a tradeoff for surviving a 75mph rollover.

I have been making the point that we would be much safer if the body around the passenger area was reinforced until it's at least as strong as older cars were. You can maintain your crumple zones, and air bags, but I really want the passenger compartments to be improved.

That's a pretty interesting question, which I am not qualified to answer but will still speculate about.

I think given the energies involved, having just interior padding and airbags would not be enough to decelerate occupants at a reasonable rate.

One comparison that springs to mind is motorcycle helmets: you can buy USD700 helmets pretty close to what racers use, and I think they're probably the best available technology. They layer elements of different strengths but even the hardest outer glass/carbon fiber element is going to abrade, fracture and flex in a heavy crash.

The point is to decelerate the occupants as gently as possible. I think you want to design the system so that in a maximal crash, the protection is maximally deformed without actually coming apart or squashing the occupants. I don't think rigid elements directly help with that. I can imagine that having parts that flex or collapse up to a stronger breaking point would be good.
Re:writing off the car is the whole point by evilviper · 2004-04-20 01:39 · Score: 1

I would guess not: there is a reasonably competitive market for cars. If there were *trivial* changes that could make safety much better, then you would expect it to happen,

There is one major problem with that theory. The crash-test ratings are taken only up to 35MPH, so even the most poorly designed car can get a 5-star rating without too much effort into safety.

Also, crash tests are done only in very few situations. A perfect front-end crash was the only type until recently, and I believe it's still the only one that needs to be successful in government ratings. Off-set impacts are important, but even more telling is the damage done in side impacts, and rollovers. Rollovers aren't even tested at this point in time, which might explain why rollovers result in so many deaths.

Until crash test speeds are significantly increased, and the crash test senarios get more complex, the rating is practically worthless, and since the sticker can continue to say "highest crash test rating", there's little incentive to make them safer.

given the energies involved, having just interior padding and airbags would not be enough to decelerate occupants at a reasonable rate.

There may be a great deal of force in a car crash, but that doesn't mean a thing. What matters is what kind of forces your body feels, and those forces are independant of the size and weight of the vehicle.

Now, the difference between a car that crumples greatly, and a car that doesn't at all (not that any exist) is only that it gives you maybe an extra meter in which to decelerate quickly. That meter is also offset by things like seatbelts which may let out several inches of slack before they hold firm, which lessens the benefit that crumple zones have.

All I can really say is: that isn't really a lot of force being eaten by the car. Certainly, crumple zones slightly lessen the force of impact, but if an airbag isn't enough to keep your ribs from being crushed, I can't imagine the tiny benefit from crumple zones changing anything. In fact, i think you'd see more benefit from installing an advanced seatbelt that would tighten more and more as it is extended. That would decelerate your body more smoothly (rather than just decelerating the car a bit more smoothly).

I think you want to design the system so that in a maximal crash, the protection is maximally deformed without actually coming apart or squashing the occupants.

No, not at all. The deforming of the passenger cab is NOT going to decrease any of the forces you feel at all, it's just a side effect of using cheap materials to build it. Anyone talking about crumple zones will tell you that the crumple zone needs to collaps when hit, and the passenger area needs to stay solid, and protect the passengers. I don't feel the need to argue that point, since all the engineers that deal with safety will support that statement.

Now, you'll have to forgive me, but I'm finding this thread rather tiresome. You seem content to believe that cars are designed as safely as they can be, no matter how well I argue that the facts say otherwise. Well, that doesn't lead to much of a discussion, so I'll just let this end here.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:writing off the car is the whole point by boots@work · 2004-04-20 12:46 · Score: 1

Well, I found the thread pretty interesting. Thanks for your thoughts.

I agree that having standard crash tests at higher speeds would be an excellent idea. Some tests are now done at 64kmh/40mph. Even if the government won't run them, I would like to see some manufacturers take the initiative and publish tests for 60MPH crashes.

I agree it would be good to see more non-painted bumpers to make low speed bumps cheaper. I was noticing on the way to work this morning how much more common they were on older cars. I suppose this is a kind of consumer fashion thing. According to the IIHS report there used to be a federal standard requiring no damage at 5mph; it's a shame that is not still required.

if an airbag isn't enough to keep your ribs from being crushed, I can't imagine the tiny benefit from crumple zones changing anything

It may not seem intuitive but I think having extra distance to decelerate makes an enormous difference. Crumpling the hood probably gives you at least a meter, whereas the seatbelt and airbag allow less than a meter of deceleration.

Assuming a linear deceleration, doubling the cushioning distance will halve the deceleration force on the passengers. Chance of injury increases super-linearly with force. Having a hood that crumples is likely to more than halve the chance of serious injury.

I think the point of a rigid passenger cell is to prevent intrusion of impacting objects or car parts. It doesn't absorb energy. The most a rigid cell can do is turn the impact from falling onto a spike into falling onto a flat surface. At 30m/s, even the flat surface is going to hurt.

I'm sure there is lots of room for improvement. I just don't think more rigid == better by definition.
Re:writing off the car is the whole point by KD5YPT · 2004-04-24 02:47 · Score: 1

Actually airbags are not designed to cusion your impact. When they inflate at that speed, its very hard, the point of that is to offset the problem that seatbelt does release a few inches of slack. Airbag merely tries to keep you hard on the seat so the car's crumble zone can be effective.

--
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
Re:writing off the car is the whole point by evilviper · 2004-04-24 11:03 · Score: 1

Airbag merely tries to keep you hard on the seat so the car's crumble zone can be effective.

That completely defies all logic... In other words, makes no sense, and no rational person would believe that.

You need to supply a link to a credibly source that confirms this.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Re:Oxymoron? by Rich0 · 2004-04-19 11:38 · Score: 1

Suppose I take a piece of burning magnesium 1 foot long and attach it to the engine block. Would it instantly stop burning - because heat is conducted away from the burning point faster than it can be generated?

If not it will continue to burn, until the burning point hits the engine block. At that point, why would it stop - we've already established that the engine block doesn't conduct heat away from the flame quickly enough.

Perhaps attaching a burning piece of magnesium to an Mg block will cause it to go out, but that doesn't seem intuitive.

Great point! by poptones · 2004-04-19 11:40 · Score: 1

and ya know what? the fact is it WASN'T running like complete shit before it died. And yes, it WAS gradual. That motor has had a variety of issues since Ford introduced it, and this particular one has always had some slap happy pistons. Ford would only replace those motors under the most dire circumstances, and so this one never met that muster. did the pistons finally slap themselves to pieces? It burned a little oil, but not enough I'd expect six scored cylinders. And yes, there are a number of causes of several cylinders having unequal compression - camshasfts have lobes that inevitably wear, and they're going to be more likely to wear if there's two of'em stuck waaay up on top of the motor where any of a dozen orifices could gather and clump contaminants like a fat man's heart after all-you-can-eat fried clam night and the Howard Johnson's.

But the point being: thanks to all those adaptable electronic controls, the motor only occasionally ran poorly no matter what. A couple of times it didn't start well, but then a minute later it started right up... until one bright and shiny morning, it didn't start at all.

You smokin' somethin'? ;) by Rimbo · 2004-04-19 12:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of course, the pollutants and resulting fire probably killed in that one instance more animal life than will every be killed by thirteen Hummer dealerships' worth of cars being driven off-road.

The ELF has done things like this before. They burned down an apartment complex being built near my home to protest "urban sprawl." Say what?

1. The apartment complex was being built in the middle of the city, nowhere near the city limits.

2. The smoke and ash from the fire poisoned the air in a 2-mile radius for the next two days.

3. Any wildlife that had been living near the construction was killed by the heat from a 4-story all-wood bonfire. We could feel the heat from half a mile away as if we were right next to our fireplace; windows on that side of our apartment complex melted from the heat. You think any nearby animals survived the blaze?

4. What do you think the owner of the property did? Do you think he saw the error of his ways? He ordered more wood. More dead trees. What else could he do? (The families you say that are now "safe in their midsize sedans" did not reconsider their purchases. They went to other dealers, or waited longer. They didn't change their behavior because of some arsonist's rationalization.)

5. There had been coyotes, rabbits and rattlesnakes living there before construction began. They were still there after construction began. They weren't there after the fire.

6. I hated the construction of that apartment complex for the noise, dirt, and turning a nice desert hillside between me and the interstate into one of urban construction. Once the ELF burned down the apartment complex, however, I felt sympathy for the people building it. I now cheer on the construction. This is significant; the ELF's actions not only have considerable harm on the environment, they turn hearts and minds AGAINST the environmental cause, and towards supporting developers. Besides, there are no more animals there; the ELF saw to that.

The ELF does more to harm the environment and environmental policy than the very people they seek to harm. What's more, their acts of arson turn people's hearts against the environmental cause. Given that, I find it difficult to believe that the ELF really believes in the cause they claim to promote.

The ELF needs to admit that they just like burning things, and stop the pseudo-environmental posing. That is the best thing they can do for the environment at this point.

Keep in mind by MOMOCROME · 2004-04-19 12:17 · Score: 1

That no-one, save a few high-minded slashdot moderators, is impressed with your miserly, no-car having ways.

Especially the auto manufacturers and car lots.

Ah, but instead of flaming you and just walking away, I am at least decent enough to try and tell you why: Simple Math.

The manufacturers are presented with a supply problem: they can ship N cars/day, and those cars have to represent the spectrum of most likely requested features.

These numbers must be statistically derived from previous sales- and projections of competitor's sales, suspicions about which way the overall population is leaning on these 'package' issues (if things are looking up, people tend to get fully loaded vehicles) and so forth.

Non auto purchasing households that are 'outraged' that a ridiculously unpopular trim level isn't immediately available are so far down on the "give a shit" list for these guys that to suppose they might ever change their ways is the sheerest idiocy. I suppose it also never occured to you that you could order a specific set of options and wait for delivery. whatever.

We haven't even come to the part where we must consider that the auto manufacturers must make these calculations outside the 3-6 months it takes from the first spot weld to populating the dealer lots, yet any of the factors involved might change in a matter of weeks.

Face it-- you are an aberation and your opinion in this matter is worth next to nothing. You aren't even close to describing a 'problem' that the industry might or will 'fix'. The fickle nature of consumer-land is a harsh mistress, and freaks and misfits are the first ones subtracted out of the equation.

Re:Volvo websites - www.brickboard.com www.ipdusa. by acceleriter · 2004-04-19 12:28 · Score: 1

Hey--thanks for the pointers! I'd heard of brickboard adn also bought a few things from IPD, but didn't know about turbobricks.

--

CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

In 1950..... by lysium · 2004-04-19 12:39 · Score: 1

Here some anecdotal evidence. Blue-collar factory workers in Rome, NY could buy a car with less than a month's salary at the start of the '50s. This is, as you noted, laughably untrue today.

====---====

--
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.

Personal Story by Macgoon · 2004-04-19 13:36 · Score: 1

A few years ago the auto recycler I was working for bought a salvaged SUV. It was apparently in perfect condition- no dents or other damage. It was only about a year old. So, what happened that caused the insurance company to write it off? Well, it got into an "up to the door handles" situation in a creek while the owner was out "4-wheelin'," which is what an SUV is supposed to be built for, notwithstanding their more normal use as intimidating automotive pit bulls. When the car was winched out of the creek and dried out, it wouldn't start. In an older model, it would have just been a matter of drying out the distributor and changing oil, but this was new technology. The computer under the passenger seat had been immersed, as had the wiring harnesses. When the insurance company totaled up the cost of a new computer, new wiring harnesses, labor and a few other items, it turned out to be cheaper to scrap the car than to fix it! Postscript: My employer simply removed the needed parts from an identical model that had been rolled, installed the stuff in the wannabe submarine, and sold it for a healthy profit.

What is this FUD? by Awptimus+Prime · 2004-04-19 13:41 · Score: 1

Add to it the cost of specialized training and equipment (for an aluminum-body repair shop: $200,000) or even the cost of new parts alone (xenon high-intensity-discharge headlights: $3,000 each), not to mention the knowledge base required (over 1 million pages, available only electronically vs. 100 pages 20 years ago) and a labor shortage.

1) Xenon HID systems do not cost $3k per bulb. Maybe for a Mercedes SLK 600, but every part on that sort of automobile is pricey for the simple fact that not many are sold, plus you have to add in the fact that many luxury car owners feel like they MUST spend thousands of dollars simple components because they feel a sense of quality with the expenditure.

2) 100 pages? I have a stack of books for cars ranging from 1969 to 1998. The repair manual for a 65 VW Beetle is approx 1200 pages alone. The one for the 69 Corvette is 980 pages. Are we comparing 1/10th of a manual from the old days to the vast archive of information available today? The one for my 98 Volvo is 1100 pages, but it does not cover the "propritary" information such as how to decode OBD signals and turn them into readable codes.

3) Labor Shortage?? Riight. Why are there very few mechanic jobs posted in my local paper? There are about 20x the number of open IT positions compared to mechanical repair.

/born to be a mechanic, forced into IT due to a lack of jobs/income associated with auto/commercial truck repair.

Long lasting cars... by Rhiado207 · 2004-04-19 13:43 · Score: 1

I Own a 1982 VW Rabbit Desiel. 432,000 miles. 1 transmission, 2 head gaskets. various shocks, tires, struts and filters. other than that, nothing.

Re:Long lasting cars... by KD5YPT · 2004-04-24 02:26 · Score: 1

If still driverable and works decent, I say that's one DAMN A**KICKING GOOD CAR!

--
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.

legalise heroin by DABANSHEE · 2004-04-19 14:13 · Score: 1

They can spend their days nodding off & talking shit

Pharmacuetical diamorph doesn't cost much more to make than aspirin

Re:I need those headlights by rhuntley12 · 2004-04-19 14:53 · Score: 1

Not to mention those soccer moms in SUV's that tail your car with those headlights so they beam into your car at eyelevel. Then they honk when you just flat out stop in the middle of the road and give them the finger.

siberian or caspian basin oil? by zogger · 2004-04-19 15:32 · Score: 1

--no, they will have to get primarily mid east oil. That's it for the big pools that are useful,where they can use their surplus petro dollars and exchange manufactured goods for crude, although they are contracting for siberian natural gas now. siberian oil isn't in the ball park for what they need, ithas to be BIG amounts and easy to get. They will reluctantly cooperate with russia at this time and for the next little while, as they are milking russia R&D-they have top-shelf thinkers there. The chinese are are negotiating now with venezuela on getting their oil as a stop gap, and they might get it unless uncah sugah pops chavez, which I am sure is past the planning stage now.

My guess is they will use a coterie of influenced younger radicals in a few mideast nations, get them bought off enough so those elements can stage a normal coup, with china being the big winner. I would watch sudan in particular, has great potential for a staging area (they are already the largest group of foreign "engineers" there,thousands of them, cross trained of course), along with iran, which has some really great fields left and a younger generation ready for a change and not big fans of the US anymore.

They have NO choice in the matter. None. Zero. that's why it will happen. Population pressures of 1 and a third billion, huge manufacturing needs, needs for energy in all it's forms, combined with other global oil consuming pressures with more and more big fields already past peak production. It's inevitable, and why the design and direction of their new military colossus that on all accounts bears little resemblance to a domestic self defense force, it'ssimply not structured correctly for that, and absolutely no one wants to invade china, so you are left with "force projection".

Coincidentally, I've always thought they were fudging the public oil figures, and right now it's breaking news on royal dutch shell REALLY fudging the figures on known and proven reserves. The only place I think they are fudging to the low ball end is in the arctic, but they want to wait and hold that until it's worth a "lot more" than it's worth now, plus they have to make sure they get ownership of it, because it's really the US and canadian citizens property now for the most part. Everywhere else, nope, they have been proven to be inflating reserve numbers, which to me sets up the time table of major mideast moves by china by two years maybe, if they think they are ready enough. That would put the tip over part at around 8 years from now entering the highest starting- probability time frame, and increasing after that. My guess is they will try to bluff it at first, failing that selective strikes to take out potential retaliatory measures, although I don't think we are looking at full armageddon scenario,not quite yet, it could still get quite brutal and global in nature. And they also don't know what the status is in ethnic trait specific biowarfare agents, and they can't take the risk until they have an adequate weapon of their own as a counter threat. SARS wasn't a fluke, it was a WHOOPS. All the larger nations are developing bioweapons, this is so obvious.

Interesting times, yes?

Also, for what it's worth, the banksters have really fudged above ground reserves of precious metals. They've hedged so far into the future that it's unreal, and pressure is on globally to produce physical, and they are hemming and hawing about it. Take if from there.

It's a safety feature by paragon_au · 2004-04-19 16:07 · Score: 1

Now I finally have the proof to back up my agurement that we need a in-car DVD system because it's primary safety feature.
Just like Airbags and ABS.

Insurance by ishmaelflood · 2004-04-19 18:03 · Score: 1

You might want to check on that.

There used to be a legal principle (in the UK) called 'betterment', so if the inusrance compay fitted new parts to your old rustheap you were partly liable for the cost, since the car was worth more repaired than it was before the accident.

Meanwhile here in Australia it is common practice for the insurance company to specify the use of secondhand parts. I do not know how they justify this.

In Russia, there are very few scrap yards... by milette · 2004-04-19 19:06 · Score: 1

Here in Russia, there are very few scrap yards, because the price of a new Russian car is about $5,000 USD (or less!) and the cost of the parts is miniscule. Even a brand new "Chevrolet Niva" (4-wheel Drive SUV) is $10,000. For example, a brand new door for a Lada 10 is about $30 USD. There are tons of 'third-party' suppliers for all parts, so pretty much everything is disposable. The only significant scrap yards are for foreign cars -- Mercedes, BMW, Range Rover, etc. A brand new headlight for a Lada is about $2.00 -- the same thing for a Mercedes is $300.00 (Which explains why I drive a Lada -- even though I don't particularly like it.) Between the lousy drivers, and the cheap cost of replacement parts... :) Marty R. Milette - Custom Toolbars

lease only.... by pensivemusic · 2004-04-20 00:19 · Score: 1

if cars were like homes, you could envision owning one and getting spare parts for them .... not now...

Oh yeah? by Civil_Disobedient · 2004-04-20 01:45 · Score: 1

Or you could buy a Miata (MX-5 outside the USA) which is the sort of car the owner can maintain.

Ever try replacing the oil filter?

Goddamned engineers need to talk to goddamn mechanics more often.

Re:Oh yeah? by Jeffrey+Baker · 2004-04-20 03:46 · Score: 1

Okay, I admit the oil filter is poorly placed. I have small hands and it never really bothered me that much. But it is easy to get oil all over the engine bay.
Re:Oh yeah? by Civil_Disobedient · 2004-04-20 07:59 · Score: 1

I was half-kidding about the oil filter. While it's a bitch to remove, everything else on the car is fantasticly designed, right down to the battery (the glass mat Panasonics that came stock with Miatas were originally based on batteries designed for jet fighters, and with proper care can last more than 5 years!! ).

Oh, and they should have stuck with the real oil guages found in pre-'95 models -- though it's a fairly easy mod.

Slightly more on-topic, here are the diagnostic codes for the Miata. As you may have guessed, I'm a fan of the little roadster. But they really should have offered supercharging as an option from the get-go. At least now they're making up for it.

Until you get into an accident. by Civil_Disobedient · 2004-04-20 02:00 · Score: 1

One of the reasons (excuses?) John Z. DeLorean gave for the stainless steel skin on the automobile that bore his name was that it would never rust

As I'm sure you already know, rust isn't the biggest problem with cars, unless you live in New England and have shoddy undercarriage spraying. You're far (far, far) more likely to get into an accident than live out your car body's life-expectancy. Even if stainless steel were easier to work with (and it's not), you've still got to take into account the "I've never seen one'a them before" factor when you take your wrecked Delorean into the shop. That can be quite a hit on the pocketbook.

Think again... Re:Not true... by arfonrg · 2004-04-20 02:52 · Score: 1

Having worked in junk yards, I can tell you that:

1) "For an automobile, first all of the fluids are drained from the car. For those fluids that can be (gasoline and oils, mainly), they are recycled back into the oil industry and other oil-based manufacturers (asphalt, and similar, mainly)."

If you ever walked around a junk yard, you'll see that there's MANY areas where large quantities of those fliuds end up spilled on the ground and soak in. Ususally a car will sit in a spot while they sell off the parts and strip it (usually many years) and the fluids just leak all over the ground. Also, the ground in and around the shop usually has more oil in it than Texas. The engine storage areas are generally worst than a Tar Pit.

2) The metal is mostly recycled and a good portion of the plastic but, the old paint get burned off (in the recycling process) and ends up in the air (in China and thus all over the world), and parts like brake pads, hoses and glass end up in a hole in the ground usually.

3) "These piles are then sent on by rail for recycling - generally via ship (not much smelting done here in the States anymore) to China or something, where they are re-smelted into raw materials which we buy back to make into - TADA! - new cars." ...and the gasses and byproducts released by the smelting process is STILL a big source of pollution (even if it is in China).

It's so funny that people will buy cloth shopping bags to save a paper bag or two by getting a longer useful life from it but will not do the same with a car.

--
Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll

Re:I need those headlights by Mycroft_VIII · 2004-04-20 03:05 · Score: 1

"Oh, and while I'm ranting, all the folks who think they should control what other people drive should... run their own lives first."
I assume this is in reply to statement about making some jacked up truck owners drive somthing smaller. This was more my venting than a serious suggestion, I honestly don't care what you drive as long as your not doing somthing stupid that puts MY life and the lives of others at risk.

"Additional free advice: when driving at night look at the road and the right road edge, not directly into other peoples headlights ;-)"
This is what I normally do (look away and watch the edge of my side of the road), the problem is these lights, especially on taller/jacked-up vehicles, are so bright as to seriously interfere with vision even in this case. And I've heard the same complaint from others and my night vision normal.
When you live a few miles back on a narrow road with NO street lights the reaction of the iris to that much light (even not directly into the eye) pretty much prevents seeing anything else till they re-adapt.

Mycroft

--
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea

Re:I need those headlights by Mycroft_VIII · 2004-04-20 03:24 · Score: 1

And they do this when you refuse to speed up to say 20+ over the speed limit in an area where the local municipality will give you a speeding ticked for 15 over in a parked car anytime they want more revenue They're infamous for this, one local guy (inventer of 'OFF' spot remover and Gyro-cola) even devoted part of a comercial he paid for to shame them.
If I'm at or above the speed limit and someone wants to go faster. They shouldn't ride my a$$ because the best they can hope for is I'm in such a hurry myself I don't slow down till they back off. I'm not risking my life and getting a ticket (esp in a town where the judge will simply ingore the statements of 3 passengers and find you guilty anyway, had to 'apeal', won that though) or worse. Know what would happen if I had to emergency brake in Chevy Cavalier with a suv 3 feet off my rear bumper? And out here where a deer or big dog can run out into the road it can happen.
Now I'm not one of those people who think it's o.k. to tell others what to do when it's just thier lives,liberty,money,etc. on the line, but when it's mine they have now right to try and force me to take risks for convience or "cool factor".

Mycroft (sheesh am I ranting lately)

--
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea

Re:From sys admin... by confused+one · 2004-04-20 04:51 · Score: 1

No. They do suffer from "wear and tear." As new models come out, you also have to buy all the specialty tools to work on that series of chassis or engine. Often these specialty tools can cost you in the range of thousands of dollars.

This doesn't count, of course, the diagnostics (computer) hardware that the shop usually buys. If you own your own shop you could easily spend 10's of thousands just trying to keep up with all the manufacturers changes each year.

Re:Think again... Re:Not true... by cr0sh · 2004-04-20 07:17 · Score: 1

Well - yes, in every junk yard I have been in, there has been a lot of "localized" pollution (ie, leaky cars and parts). I am not naive enough to think that they get all the fluids out, but it isn't like they are just willy-nilly dumping everything on the ground, either (and just like everything else, I am sure there are places that do that, too).

There are some work left to be done - perhaps scrap yards need to be lined (like dumps and some refineries are) and dirt berms set up before construction/opening?

As far as the paint being burned off in the smelting process - yes, I know this happens too, but smelting as a process, whether new or old metal is used - causes a lot of pollution (nature of beast, I suppose). I would hope that the metal from the brake pads would be recycled, that hoses would be chipped for roadways or something, and the glass would be reprocessed - if not, it should. But I do know that a certain percentage does end up in the landfill.

The point is, the whole car doesn't end up in a landfill in most cases, that there is a ton of recycling done so that the pieces and materials can be reused. I know it isn't a clean process, and that there is room for improvement. It will probably never be a completely clean process, but at least it currently exists for cars, unlike many other products. I suppose part of the reason is because cars aren't so easily "thrown away" and forgotten about, unlike say an alluminum can, which can be easily recycled, but people generally just throw them away because of the ease, rather than going through the "hassle" of sorting trash and taking it to a recycling center.

--
Reason is the Path to God - Anon

Auto Recycling by thomn8r · 2004-04-20 08:49 · Score: 1

As someone who has spent many hours in junkyards, I know that "auto recycling" is big business. From what I've seen at the specialised recylers, they base pricing on ~50% of the dealer's price, so if the dealer gets $3000 for those xeon [sic] headlights, they'll want $1500.

Setting Slant-6 Valve Lash by BigBlockMopar · 2004-04-24 06:06 · Score: 1

You can get rid of the clickety click by adjusting the valve lash to within specs. According to my Chiltons, it's .010" Intake, .020" Exhaust. My old Volare was as quiet as a hydraulic lifter car until the body rusted out and I had to junk it.

Yup. But remember you have to set the valve lash when the engine is hot! I do it just before an oil change (that way, any dust which gets in is removed). Take off the valve cover, then put it back on held loosely by two bolts. Start the engine, let it idle until the upper rad hose gets hot. Then shut it off, unplug the ignition coil (so it can't somehow start when you're cranking it over by hand to set the lash on the open valves) and get busy with the feeler gauge.

When it's properly set, the Slant-6 will make a distinct valve lash noise when it's cold, but once it's warm, it'll be nearly silent.

--
Fire and Meat. Yummy.

Slashdot Mirror

Technology Makes New Cars Too Expensive to Fix

995 of 1,246 comments (clear)