Slashdot Mirror
Auto Industry's Fastest Processor Is 128Mhz
afabbro writes "GM stated that the 2011 Buick Regal will have the auto industry's fastest processor: 128Mhz, and 3MB of flash. 'Three meg of flash memory and 128MHz clock speed doesn't sound like a lot in terms of computing power until you consider the environment these controllers have to live in. Our controllers are made to operate reliably up to 260 degrees (127C) and down to -40 degrees (-40C) for the life of the vehicle.'"
128MHZ for a rugged CPU for automotive use is a good thing, but clock speed is just one of many factors. TFA was a tad light on information and worded as an ad (which is to be expected from GM's press website), but other than just mentioning vague details and the fact that Freescale made it, this doesn't really mean much without factoring in other details.
Will this mean the 2011 Regal will be leaps and bounds over the 2010? Yes. How much is debatable.
Will this matter in the total scheme of automotive technology? Not really. ECMs have been improving each year, so the 2011 Regal may have a bump in the control CPU's clock speed, but perhaps some other car maker would have a different architecture in place (multiple modules controlling different functions such as PATS/antitheft, O2 sensor, fuel sensor [1], etc.)
Will other car companies have improvements in their technology? Assuredly. Ford has some new engines going in the mainstream line of vehicles. Other vehicle makers may be bringing diesels to the US.
The big question in all of this: Is there a car example I can go on here?
[1]: I'm sure all cars in the US will eventually be going Flex-Fuel (talk about bumping gasoline from 10% to 15% is happening in some places here in the US), so having the circuitry in place to handle varying amounts of ethanol will be crucial.
That in the early 90's that would have been a top end pc, and it's still probably more computing power than the space shuttle.
Environment similar to mil spec, durability like industrial, prices like consumer products.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
128 MHz should be enough for every car.
rewriting history since 2109
Today while I was filling up my 2003 Corolla with gas, a guy drove up to the next pump in his 1952 MG convertible. Which gets 30MPG. My Corolla gets 27MPG.
--
make install -not war
There are digital signal processors in production for years which go up to 333MHz, like ADI SHARCs.
BMW had one in their E70 X5 audio system. I am sure there are more examples.
I will check at work tomorrow but I am sure there are also higher speed C out there.
Erm, you realize this is talking specifically about engine micro-controllers right?
Only -40? How do new cars do in REAL cold, anyway?
-40F is equal to -40C
There are digital signal processors in production for years which go up to 333MHz, like ADI SHARCs.
BMW had one in their E70 X5 audio system. I am sure there are more examples.
I will check at work tomorrow but I am sure there are also higher speed C out there.
The device in the article is a microcontroller that runs at 125MHz. While there is research to merge the two functions, DSP processors and microcontrollers are not generally considered to be in the same product category, so unless there's another microcontroller out there that beats this one, the article is correct.
Your GPS unit is not an "automotive cpu"... It is a consumer product fitted into a car.
The automative processor is what controls your fuel injection, ABS and other such functions.
There is a world of difference between the two.
Considering the ECU is, most often, mounted in the engine bay, both are temperatures the controller could experience.
So... 3 years or 25 000 miles...
3 years or 25 000 miles...
And didn't have to compete on commodity cost. Your point?
My GPS system and display has a pretty decent CPU in it, too. Oh, and a 3.2 Ghz Triple core CPU: http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/12494/Suzuki-SXBox-Xbox-360-Concept-Car-Pictures/
And how is the environment of a built-in GPS really significantly different from the ECU? Both are subject to the same dirty power supply, the same environmental extremes, and longer-than CE durability (eg 3-year+ warranty versus 1 for CE, typically). Perhaps it's not expected to be fail-safe, and perhaps it's not a huge deal if it dies after 8 years instead of 15, but I bet it's still built for automotive specifications. Heck, the NVIDIA Tegra is getting used in Audis now; that could be up to 700 MHz or more, though it's possible they might underclock it for better reliability and thermal tolerance.
And how is the environment of a built-in GPS really significantly different from the ECU? [...] Perhaps it's not expected to be fail-safe...
But that's the whole point, isn't it? Your vehicle isn't a useless lump of metal and plastic if your GPS unit fails.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I agree with AC - name one current (2010 or 2011) American vehicle (I'll even grant trucks, including the over the road tractors!) with a carburetor. As a matter of fact, name one made since 1999 ...
Does it run Linux?
Sure a car can have computers, even my 93 Dodge has some kind of controller.
Hey we could have another TCP/IP type revolution here... add layers and gain functionality.
What is needed is to connect existing automobiles to an autonomous vehicle interface. The autonomous vehicle interface would provide a connection point for an autonomous vehicle computer to be attached.
The autonomous vehicle computer would query the interface device and get a description response of all the controls and sensors available. The interface would organize and scale the data available from the car. The interface would convert autonomous vehicle computer data into the signals expected by the devices attached to the automobile.
Think of the autonomous vehicle interface as an Arduino Mega that is wired into whatever the vehicle has available. The interface would be like interaction with a python interpreter.
Now the autonomous vehicle computer, think of that as a Linux netbook running a variety of programs for the car. There could be add on sensor devices attached to the autonomous vehicle computer. Like a GPS, a data cell phone and a 802.g wireless connection to nearby vehicles and 802.g radio equipped traffic devices.
http://lessco2essay.blogspot.com/2010/11/proposal-for-autonomous-vehicle.html
So what to do with such a modification: Completely end drunk driving accidents. Reduce the kWh per 100 passenger-kilometres. Do aggressive dynamic insured and paid ride sharing.
Dramatically reduce distracted driving damage. Reduce direct fuel use by coasting up to stoplights. All of this with existing vehicles.
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_118.shtml
The exciting part of doing AVT autonomous vehicle technology like this is: It is not proprietary and locked up in islands of make and model specific functionality. Some aspects of AVT can be backported to most older cars and real energy and safety benefits accrued.
Three meg of flash memory and 128MHz clock speed doesn't sound like a lot in terms of computing power
Guess that depends on your point of view, a car travelling 360Km/Hr is travelling 100m/s, so in a millisecond travels 10cm or about 4 inches. Assuming one instruction per clock cycle you can do a lot of useful stuff with 128,000 instructions, or put another way probably about one million for every revolution of the wheel
3MB of FLASH is huge as well when you aren't loading a lot of crap like multimedia, not that it would run Linux but I just took a look at the last kernel I built for an embedded platform and it came in under 2MB with quite a generous set of modules loaded.
Ummm...they are so different it's disgusting. Automotive CPUs have to be mil-spec specifications with industrial reliability. It has to be when the consequences of failure can easily lead to death. If your whiz-bang dodad of a GPS unit fails they don't have to worry about your engine's timing being spot on every time, every second, of every day, autocorrecting continually to keep it from throwing a rod, and all but killing the engine, or brakes suddenly not responding correctly.
Oh, and your GPS unit doesn't get hit by the dirty power supply correctly if made right. The power hits a conversion to the internal battery the unit then pulls from. Of which, you can still kill those hokey little GPS units real easy from those dirty power sources cars provide. Thankfully your going to have a 5-10amp fuse keeping things from going sizzle sizzle.
I overclocked mine to 350 using an extra heatsink.
Since we are talking about GM, I guess they could put in an uncooled Athlon XP. That would best match the CPU MTBF to the useful life of the vehicle.
And how is the environment of a built-in GPS really significantly different from the ECU? Both are subject to the same dirty power supply, the same environmental extremes, ...
You are correct up to the environmental conditions. The ECU is in the engine compartment and must withstand operational temperatures during the summer that can reach ~200 F. Your GPS may hit 200, but it will be off.
And I just ran out of points. darn
-1 ignorant. If memory serves, the nissan GT-R processor is 20MHz RISC.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It probably won't. Most ECU's have a very small RTOS, usually based on OSEK or AUTOSAR standard.
as it turns out.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/607965/how_cold_a_car_can_handle/
My GPS system and display has a pretty decent CPU in it, too.
Oh, and a 3.2 Ghz Triple core CPU:
http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/12494/Suzuki-SXBox-Xbox-360-Concept-Car-Pictures/
Please do not compare engine ECU processors to GPS interface processors. The GPS units do not have runtime requirements (just like in Windows). The ECUs have to make some calculations at very small reccurence. Missing such a timing can have dezastruous effects. Think about this: and engine at 8000rpm will complete one rotation in 7.5ms. So the better control you have over the injectors and spark plugs, the better fuel efficiency you can get from one burning cycle. While a diesel will probably not reach 8000rpm, just think about this: a fuel injection cycle has 3 stages, pre-injection, injection and post-injection. In the pre- and post-injection the fuel quantity is pretty small compared to the injection phase, but all this is done during half of rotation (maybe a little more, as I don't know about the advance). So at 5000rpm (at which some diesels cut fuel), you have 12ms for one rotation, that means 6ms for making 3 separate injections. And you also have to monitor many sensors to prevent some damages. If you would rely on windows (even CE), you would kill you engine pretty quickly.
And what they are talking about is currnet products (released engine). I can tell you that they are already working on a 133MHz processor which can also run at 180MHz (Infineon Tricore 1782). But projects based on these will probably not see the day in 2011.
Also, if you compare a core2duo, you should be aware that we are talking about less than 1W microcontrollers. Also processors which are rated for 15 year in 125 C ambiental conditions. Your C2D would have tripped the shutdown signal long before your engine was getting warm, as it's around 100C at junction level, not ambiental.
The engine compartment stays cooler than the inside of the car but many cars put their electronics under the rear seats.
The environment may not be significantly different, but think for a moment about driving your family car down a mountain road. Would you trust your family's life to a device that was manufactured to be sold for ~$150? Compare the result of a GPS device failing during this scenario vs. the ECU that controls ABS, stability programs, traction control, etc.
I for one am glad they are not using the latest and greatest in electronics for automotive ECU's. You need something PROVEN to be reliable, something that ALWAYS works. You absolutely do not need the fastest available microprocessor in these systems. Every microprocessor has faults and errata, and these need to be well-known so that faults can be handled in such a way as to not crash the system. You must also consider that the more complex and large any system becomes, the more time (and money) it takes to PROVE the system can handle faults without crashing. Debugging a system with 3MB of memory is far easier than one with much larger amounts.
Reliability is FAR more critical in ECU's than it is in your average desktop. If a program crashes on my desktop, at worst I've lost a bit of work since the last time I saved my data. If an automotive ECU crashes, it puts people's lives at risk.
I would wager that the Tegra is NOT used in the ECU. It's likely only used for running non-critical systems like entertainment and navigation systems and the gauge cluster. Not the engine management, braking or stability systems which would be handled by a more robust system.
I wondered before why ECM/PCMs etc. have to be under the hood. Why can't they be on the dashboard side of the firewall?
Genuine question here: why do these things need to be so rugged? Why can't they just slot under the dashboard where the environment (I'd hope) is a little more comfortable?
I think I just bit a flamebait. But the only part you are right is with the placement under the seat. While I don't know for older models (pre-90s ???), that was never true for engine ECUs. I know a specific model of gearbox that has the ECU in passenger compartment, but all post-2000 engine ECUs are clamped (or close) to the engine block. That is because what is controlled by the ECU has a high current, and the wires can be cut. So the shorter the wires, the less chance of cutting them.
Also, I really don't see how you can say then engine compartment stays cooler...... This is only true for a car in the sun which was NOT started that day. The engine water will get to 80-90C within minutes of driving. So the engine compartment can have 50C very easily even in winter.
I'm sure those were not for the engine. There are cars with 10 or more ECUs, from which only 1 is for the engine.
Well, the factory-supplied media centers that are starting to appear in cars are probably faster, too. I think the point, which was missed, is that this is a chip that actively affects the car's driving.
Summarising, a modern turbodiesel is inherently about 25% more efficient than an equally modern gasoline engine. With old and crude designs like, say, carb hemi V8s, the Diesel has more like a 2:1 advantage. The remaining 5% comes from the fuel.
Sheesh, kids today. Get off my lawn.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
And how is the environment of a built-in GPS really significantly different from the ECU? Both are subject to the same dirty power supply
More or less, yes
, the same environmental extremes,
Not even close.
One is in a hot environment (think 70C / 160F), next to a major emitter of EM radiation
The other one is at room temperature, with a convenient shield and at a convenient distance
how long until
No need to search: You can find press releases from 2008 about engine control ECUs build around Infineon Tricore with 150 MHz:
http://www.tuneline.at/news/detail.asp?start=235 (sorry, in German)
The Audi V12 (diesel) is controlled by two 150 MHz processors operating as master-slave.
I am an Automotive engineer. I work on infotainment components. This story is 100% wrong. 128Mhz, what BS
Not true. for Ford, the fist infotainment component not meeting Auto Specs was Sync. And only 2 chips were not auto grade.
That depends on who's driving
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
You dont need a high frequency processor to run an ECU.. The complexity of software like win 3.11 running on a 25mhz 486sx is staggering compared to those ECUs. They are built to be safe and reliable, not to be powerful.
If you need more than 128mhz you're doing it wrong.
As a comparison... Kollsnes Gas Processing plant has ABB MFP controllers for control of for instance huge 30mw compressors. These controllers run at... wait for it... 25mhz. They're so reliable that we have never had one go down since 1996. They're not powerful, but they're daaaymn reliable... So reliable that it is hard to get the customer to upgrade to newer and more powerful units because it -just- -works-.
My 1989 Citroen XM had six or seven ECUs depending on whether or not you count the heater and aircon ECU separately - engine, ABS, suspension (hydraulic suspension with electronic stabilisation), heater, aircon, central locking (which also dealt with windows, courtesy lights and immobiliser) and the dashboard and instrumentation controller. That doesn't include all the little motor drivers, sensor amplifiers and assorted other little boxes dotted around the vehicle.
Surprisingly enough, although much of it was somewhat ahead of the technology curve it was pretty reliable once you replaced the rather poor quality earthing connectors in the engine bay - the suspension ECU tries to switch about 10A for the stiffness electrovalve through the same earth tag as everything else, which usually resulted in *something* locking up and misbehaving.
think for a moment about driving your family car down a mountain road. Would you trust your family's life to a device that was manufactured to be sold for ~$150?
Humorously, that's almost exactly the cost of my latest set of brake rotors. I believe it was $143 with shipping. I install them myself because 1) its actually easier than changing the oil for my car design 2) If I do it, I know the installer is not on meth 3) I know the boss isn't trying to cheap out on brake cleaner or rush the job
That's also about the price of one decent tire for my car.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky!
Meanwhile I'm working on a micro-controller project that runs at 500Hz (not kilo, just hertz).
If you keep the code tight and hand-craft it, 128Mhz is blindingly fast.
Who are you? Who do you work for? Define: 'ours'.
Tonight's top story: AC provides unsubstantiated pseudofact to negate accuracy of story. Scandal? Or attention-seeking whore?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
And how is the environment of a built-in GPS really significantly different from the ECU? [...] Perhaps it's not expected to be fail-safe...
But that's the whole point, isn't it? Your vehicle isn't a useless lump of metal and plastic if your GPS unit fails.
...or a flaming ball of death, if it fails at wrong point.
Ok, I'll take that back, that can happen with GPS devices too, though that case was not really fault of electronics.
Think about this: and engine at 8000rpm will complete one rotation in 7.5ms. So the better control you have over the injectors and spark plugs, the better fuel efficiency you can get from one burning cycle. While a diesel will probably not reach 8000rpm,
A decent gasoline engine won't reach 8000 RPM, either, unless you're one of those people that thinks a few more horsepower at insanely high RPM is worth having practically zero torque anywhere below 3500.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
The media system actively affects the car's driving, too.
At least, if you're driving a thumpmobile.....
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
It's not even about that... You will not loose braking power and the cushions will deploy if your GPS dies. If you ECU dies, your life is in jeopardy... The car can be a useless pile of metal, for all I care, but my life has to be kept safe.
Our controllers are made to operate reliably up to 260 degrees (127C) and down to -40 degrees (-40C) for the life of the vehicle.'"
More like a different universe, really. Chips like the PIC18F line (from Microchip) are still widely used. These are 8-bit processors, running at a few 10s of MHz (at most).
I currently work in the military avionics field; a 1 GHz Celeron is still pretty bleeding edge. A big part of the issue is heat -- fans are problematic, especially in harsh environments. You need something with low enough power dissipation that can be sealed inside a box and passively cooled.
These processors run real time software, there isn't likely to be a big bulky OS in there. The speed of the CPU doesn't really make much difference as it won't be multitasking. As long as it can respond in time then that's all that matters.
Often the biggest problem with the software in ECUs is all the varying laws in each country. So the software is often a compromise, this is why "chipping" your car can improve performance.
Considering a DVD with mp3s already can hold thousands (probably an *average* person's audio library would fit on one single-layer DVD).
Secondly, I thought optical media for MP3 storage would be great and so I got a headunit some years ago explicitly with MP3 DVD capability. The problem when compared to even USB flash is the seek time is noticeably slow. Even if you operationally did all sorts of tricks (e.g. prebuffer the beginning of the 'next' track), you won't hit all the cases of navigation and nothing mitigates the initial spin-up and index time.
Considering that USB flash is relatively inexpensive, focusing on home-written optical media would be a waste. BluRay may have a place as a player for publisher provided movies, but publishers will never sell a large audio collection in one chunk to warrant anything other than uncompressed CD on their end.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Your vehicle isn't a useless lump of metal and plastic if your GPS unit fails.
With most GPSs, no, the vehicle doesn't fail. But in a lot of cases, the driver might fit that description....
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
While it's true that a lot of them are under the hood, most 2000-2005 GM models (maybe more years...don't know) are at the front left of the engine compartment. If the car is moving forward at all, then cool outside air will be blowing over it, rather than any engine heat. So while the average engine compartment temperature may be 50+ C, the actual location of the ECU will be significantly cooler.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Compare the result of a GPS device failing during this scenario vs. the ECU that controls ABS, stability programs, traction control, etc.
If you require ABS, stability programs and traction control to stop a car safely, even on a mountain road, you are an unsafe driver, and shouldn't be behind the wheel.
As for this:
Would you trust your family's life to a device that was manufactured to be sold for ~$150?
My car's brake pads are much, much more important for safety than ABS (considering it doesn't even have it), and they cost under $100.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
I think the whole point of safety systems on cars are for the majority of drivers on the road that haven't been through any experienced training and/or haven't had to experience wheel lock up or a slide in a car.
To add, I had a teenager pull out of his driveway yesterday with me about 150 feet away. I was on my motorcycle, and it's the first time that I somewhat did a panic stop and mashed the rear brake a little hard. Since I've taken the motorcycle safety course - and was given opportunity to do the same on the smaller bikes - I feel that I had the bike under good control, even though the squeal of the tire caused me to jump a little. In this instance, where my mind isn't truly thinking and my body is just reacting to "I don't want to hit this kid" ABS would have assisted in not sliding the rear end of the bike.
Even a somewhat experienced driver/rider (I have about 2500 miles under my belt on a bike, countless more in automobiles) has situations to where computer aided vehicle control will help. Are they required? No, but they definitely make you feel more comfortable if you find yourself in a situation that you don't expect. Not having ABS / traction control or stability control in a vehicle isn't a bad thing, and to reinforce your statement somewhat - you just have to acknowledge that you should go slower and be more cautious. The variable that you cannot control though is other drivers unexpected maneuvers when traveling no matter the vehicle.
Karnal
Indeed. In today's legislative environment, at most 50% of the code in an engine controller is actually related to controlling the engine; the rest is OBD and other diagnostics, plus perhaps some other "advanced" features used for differentiation. Scheduling fuel, spark, and perhaps throttle control are not computationally-intensive tasks by any stretch of the imagination (even on engines like Formula 1 running at ~20k RPM).
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
those people like Honda and and every motorcycle maker besides harley davidson?
yeah i hate that my Triumph Daytona has to hit 12600 rpm to make peak hp /sarcasm
i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
while i agree you shouldnt need ABS to be a safe driver, the fact is pretty much all new cars come with it, so lets go with the assumption that its equipped that way. in this case, i certainly want to know that the ABS is functioning because lets face it, the uncertainty of whether or not the ABS will fire is of huge importance when trying to avoid an accident. if i know i have ABS i'm ok, if i know i dont, i'm ok, if i'm unsure, thats dangerous.
i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
WARNING: Silverlight video
Sounds like the ECU I currently have in my car. The ECU has a physical switch on it. Set one way the ECU appears, for all intents and purposes, like a stock factory ECU. The car runs like it too. The switch spends about an hour a year that way when I take the car in for emissions testing. The rest of the year the switch is in the other position, which yields somewhat different performance characteristics.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
8k is insanely high? I thought 10K would be there, and there are racing engines that go to 18.5k formula 1 for example. MotoGP bikes do around that as well. I have heard of consumer diesels getting up to 6k-8k and produce insane amounts of torque... And the R10 and R15 from audi are Common rail injection twin turbo diesels and likely reach 8k RPM.
I'm not saying that you are wrong in your assessment about not reaching 8k rpm. Just that a gear box will let you go 30mph at 8k rpm with all the torque you need. I'm still wondering why we don't use high rpm small displacement engines in cars these days., apart from noise concerns.
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
It's amazing when I tell people that you can't just put a computer in any environment and it will work, In a car we have one of the hardest computer operating environments for a computer system, so much RF and motor noise and conditions which cause computers to fail. The Automotive controls have to work in environments so far beyond a normal computer operating environment it's amazing. So 128 Mhz and 3 MB flash, is actually a really good system.
Actually there is...at least I know about the Infineon Tricore 1782...it's rated for automotive use (-40C to 150C), is build in 90nm technology and works at 133MHz or 180MHz. I don't really know why they have 2 speed ratings...possibly the reccomended values for power envelope, so the project decides what to use. But you probably won't see anything based on it until mid-2011, as it's a pretty new processor.
127 to -40 is a problem. Actually it's a pretty serious problem. Well 127 on the high side is probably manageable, depending on where exactly the processor is in the engine, most inhabited places only rarely get to 50-60C, and then if you leave the vehicle out in the sun it's only 80 or 90. But about 7 years ago we had a cold snap that hit basically the great lakes, and the St. Lawrence area and it was consistently below -40 for more than two weeks, and that's in an area with ~25 or 30 million people (and by extension 25 or 30 million cars since it's north america). And that sort of thing isn't all that uncommon in a lot of canada or the US. So that's not even accounting for anywhere else in the world. I'm sure parts can exceed tolerance for a while, but I'd hate find out the 12 CPU's in my car all need to be replaced because I left it out overnight in -45 C weather.
And for this anemic POS computer they charge something like 2 grand. What a RIPOFF!
But 6000rpm is not uncommon. My car has a 1.6L engine with a 6400rpm cut-off. That means they need to guarantee the engine works flawlessly up to 6400rpm, with any fuel from the specified range (95 or 98 in Europe). It does not matter how I drive it. The manufacturer specifies peak HP at 6000rpm, so it has to deliver it. Failiures are allowed only from wear, not electronic.
And for motorcycles.....my city/touring Yamaha has a 12000rpm cut-off. But the 1L Fazer has peak power at 12500rpm.
Today while I was filling up my 2003 Corolla with gas, a guy drove up to the next pump in his 1952 MG convertible. Which gets 30MPG. My Corolla gets 27MPG.
So you are comparing a an MG that gets maybe 50HP, has a top speed of 77mph and does 0-60 in 18.2 seconds with a Corolla that even in its mildest trim gets 95HP which is at minimum roughly double the fuel economy per available horsepower. Could you come up with a slightly worse comparison? Maybe a Prius to an M1 Abrams Tank? It is perfectly possible and even easy to find cars using modern technology to get much higher MPG. However there are other issues to consider because MPG isn't the only consideration. Safety, reliability, comfort, entertainment, intended use and other features are all trade offs engineers need to make to satisfy both legal and customer requirements. There are very good reasons we don't make cars like a '52 MG anymore.
This reminds me of the stupid comparisons of the cost of a gallon of diesel fuel with a gallon of gasoline. Diesel has about 20% more energy per unit of volume so PER UNIT OF HORSEPOWER, diesel is more efficient under many (though not all) circumstances. Simply saying diesel is more expensive per gallon really tells you nothing. The useful comparison is cost per unit of horsepower, i.e., how much power was generated per dollar. Grossly simplified, at the current prices near me diesel would have to be over $0.60/gallon more expensive to make gasoline a better deal per unit of horsepower for a typical automobile.
>think for a moment about driving your family car down a mountain road.
Ok. I want a good old dual channel hydraulic system.
What passenger car brakes are fly by wire now? I can accept some servo-assist to a hydraulic system, but the system should still work in an emergency mode even after a loss of a hydraulic circuit and electrical and vacuum power.
Electronics or no electronics, your braking system should be at least as safe as in a 1969 Volkswagen, no matter what fails.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
For extreme conditions look to the Oil & Gas Industry. The tools they drop into wells are rated -40 C to 175 C. That is operating temperature. The tools have to work at that temperature for 8, 12, or even 20 hours without failure. TI is developing a line of high reliability microcontrollers that are rated to 205 C.
The OnStar module found in most GM cars has an automotive-qualified 400MHz PPC 603e-based core and the latest versions have 16MB (or more) of flash and RAM.
-Splat
I've seen all kinds of cars and tractors start in temperatures getting near or below -40 degrees. Some times that meant the transmission got busted.
As a teenager in northern Canada, I learned that you need to warm up the transmission as well as the engine in extreme cold. A friend of my dad's forgot this lesson and and had to replace his car's automatic transmission.
In extreme cold, you can protect your transmission by putting it in neutral for a few minutes. This gets the transmission oil moving (and warming) without engaging more delicate mechanical parts. Do not leave an automatic transmission in "Park".
BTW - While several minutes of idling in neutral during EXTREME cold conditions are required to warm the transmission, 90 seconds of idling is all your engine needs. Any extra idling time is for only for the driver's comfort (i.e. warms up the cars interior )
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
Would be so great if more people would do it...
One that hath name thou can not otter
What the "article" describes is standard for high-grade automotive MCUs. 128MHz may be new in engine controllers (although I doubt by much), but it is not new in cars. I work on production automotive MCUs for antilock brakes and chassis control that go up to 160MHz and >200MHz is in the pipeline. I don't think we sell anything with 3 MB of flash (which might be the more exciting part), but that's just a matter of what people are willing to pay. The operating conditions (-40C to 125C, etc.) are bog-standard for this application. It doesn't sound like there's anything new here -- they just made a new ECM and are patting themselves on the back. It may be better than anything else by some metric, but they didn't say what that metric really is.
That being said, it is nice to see something concrete about what their engineering group is up to rather than some empty fluff about new Buicks being able to cure cancer or something.
Visit the
And what if those ABS, stability programs and traction control function incorrectly?
One that hath name thou can not otter
None are drive-by-wire now afaik, but electronic controls which function incorrectly could still present a major problem.
As a side note, down a mountain road I want engine breaking...
One that hath name thou can not otter
Exactly - all *more* reasons to stop the subsidies, IMO. The beef industry is almost as bad as the oil industry in waste of resources and environmental damage.
Making beef an occasional luxury rather than a cheap staple would probably cut the US health costs in half, as well!
I think you missed the point. It's a goddamn xbox car.
I posted this elsewhere first- in a discussion about how automakers complain that the MPG targets set for them are unrealistic- but it seems to fit here:
The 3rd most fuel-efficient car in the last 30 years, after the Prius and the Insight, was the 26-year-old Chevy Sprint (see http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/fuel-economy/epa-fuel-efficient-cars-chevy-sprint ). Overall, despite all the progress in engineering over the last 30 years, fuel efficiency hasn't increased all that much on average.
Advances in efficiency are offset by increased curb weight due to overdone crashworthiness standards and a crashworthiness arms race. If _your_ vehicle has a lot of mass between you and the front of the car, you're safer in a head-on collision. But if _everybody's_ cars have that increased mass, then you're not really safer.
Other reasons for a lack of progress include people's demands for higher acceleration performance (leading to big, heavy engines which use a lot of fuel) and other amenities. The automakers are right that the demand for higher efficiency isn't strong enough to outweigh costs and the demands for other amenities, and the only way this is likely to change is if fuel prices increase.
Fuel taxes and more balanced safety standards (recognizing safety v. efficiency is generally a tradeoff and so we really _don't_ want the safest cars possible) are the only things the government can do that will have a reliable and sizable effect in increasing average fleet efficiency. Just yelling at auto manufacturers for selling people what they want to buy isn't going to help.
Which is different to flash video how exactly? :p
Since this article is about cars, not motorcycles, I figured it would be implicit that I was talking about car engines, not motorcycles.
You don't need a lot of torque to move 500 lbs of motorcycle and rider.
4000+ lbs of car, driver, passengers, cargo, etc, though, you do.
And referring to Honda: that's exactly the type of engine I'm talking about. I've driven a couple of Honda cars, and a handful of Toyotas, too, and they're all the same.
I find the lack of throttle response at the low end to be downright frightening. It's like you hit the accelerator and.....nothing. When you're used to 200 foot pounds at 1500 RPM, and climbing from there, this "nothing before 3500" thing is painful.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
I'm still wondering why we don't use high rpm small displacement engines in cars these days., apart from noise concerns.
Oil burning. The higher the RPM, the more oil is burned, and the more pollution by extension.
Besides, there are still people like me who like to be able to hit the gas at any RPM in any gear and know exactly how the car is going to respond.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Yes, motorcycles rev a lot higher. But that's not what I was talking about.
A lot of engines in North American passenger cars redline at 5,500 or 6,000 RPM. It doesn't give you high horsepower at high RPM, but it gives you gobs of torque right off idle. I happen to like the feel that the gobs of torque gives me a lot more than high RPM horsepower.
It also means that you can smoke the pimped out Honda in the next lane without warning them by having to rev your engine up before the light goes green. Not that I'd ever do such a thing, of course....
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Traction control is irrelevant when trying to stop a vehicle.
Stability could be a moderate issue, if the entire suspension goes horrendously sloppy at an inopportune moment, but even at that, you've still got the actual mechanical suspension, so it's not a big deal.
If your ABS suddenly decides that the wheels are at imminent lockup at 0.1G deceleration on dry pavement, then you've got a problem. But that's what the emergency brake is for. It's still mechanical for that very reason, and I think is required to be by law.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
My Saab 93 manual says the ECM is inside under the A pillar. Saab and VW both use under the back seat for critical systems such as main control and ABS control systems. It is very common for new cars to have the spark generation system bolted near the spark plugs but they don't have much electronics there but that has been the case since the days of what was called "electronic ignition" where you would put a detector in the distributor cap and then have a heat sinked box with the transistor circuits bolted to some bit of the body.
Very little in the engine compartment gets to 50C most of the time and you will find that all the bits that do get hot are thermally insulted from the rest of the car. Engine compartments also have very good airflow. I can't remember every finding a hot part of the car that wasn't the engine, its cooling system or the exhaust system.
My 1988 VW had an analog computer running its engine management system which was tucked behind the center console.
Yes, but the twenty something driver will be a useless wreck, sobbing and texting "omg how u use map?"
Traction control is very relevant, it is something which has the capability to put you suddenly in a spin and there's not much you can do about it. Doubly problematic on a wet mountain road, etc.
(and engaging emergency brake at speed is...doable, but not something an ordinary good driver is used to; expect another spin)
One that hath name thou can not otter
One guy defending his 'eevil gas-guzzler muscle car' because it held together longer, thus with lower manufacturing costs
Well, he probably figured it's really cool - I wonder if the environmental numbers are even better with a *compact* older car
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
i guess my point is that it all depends on the application. every modern engine that runs on the street needs an ECU so really the article has implications for all vehicles. not trying to be pedantic or anything but i try to look at the largest practical scope possible, in this case it would include motorcycles, semi trucks and everything in between.
i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
A old style carb? or a new style "injected mixing box"? Very few new US cars are really direct into the cylinder injection.
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
You said it yourself..."without warning them". That is not what racing drivers do.
But what you are talking about is driver preference, not manufacturer designs. Usually the driver prefers a quieter engine, and that means low rpm. And he usually drives it at low rpm too. For gasoline engines, that means 80% of times below peak torque rpm. My engine has peak torque at 4K rpm, and that is usually the latest I shift. So to answer your question, I don't prefer high-revving engines for every-day driving. But the topic is about car manufacturers and their reliability.
And about your horsepower and torque, remember that what the manufacturers specify are maximums. You will always have some horsepower and torque, which are affected by pedal position and rpm. And if you calculate the HP at peak torque and rpm, you will see that you have somewhere between 50-70% of your peak HP, depending on engine. And for best acceleration, forget about engine torque, it's torque at wheels you want. And you will always maximize that when you are around peak engine power.
And a high-rpm engine will always keep you on edge, as you need to downshift prior to making a high-acceleration manoeuvre.
I agree with most of this, and what's said above and below... But the GPS in your car is exposed to extremes too - most people would be pretty pissed if every time they parked in the sun, their GPS wouldn't turn on. Last time I left my iPhone in the car on a hot day, it wouldn't turn on because it had overheated. The GPS worked fine, of course. I'd be willing to bet that's because it's designed for approximately the same environmental conditions as the ECU.
There are many good reasons for an ECU to be slow and old technology; there's not much need for hefty processing power, for one. And if you add more processing power, then you're probably adding more code, and more bugs, and more failures...
And in any case, I'd bet there are quite a few parts in your car that cost $150 or less to manufacture, yet a catastrophic failure would put your life in danger.
Also, that guy sounded like the kind of guy who's really enthusiastic about maintaining his vehicle, which has got to help longevity - I wonder if those kinds of gearheads could get sufficiently excited about maintaining $old_compact.
-
No worries about replying to the sig; it's there for a reason. :)
I have indeed heard the RIAA 'horror stories'.
Seems you're thinking along the lines that if we ignore the RIAA today (even if we think there's _some_ value to particular RIAA artists), its costs and problems would be eliminated or reduced in the future? I see clear costs and unclear benefits in *completely* ditching them.
I simply don't feel the furor common around here, by taking it case-by-case, I end up with a mixture of RIAA and indie.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Gives a new meaning to "blood boiling". Considering also child deaths in hot cars, I would say a solar powered fan would be a better investment.
What about manual transmissions? Any special considerations for them in extreme cold?
> Also, that guy sounded like the kind of guy who's really enthusiastic about maintaining his vehicle, which has got to help longevity - I wonder if those kinds of gearheads could get sufficiently excited about maintaining $old_compact.
Unlikely.
> I simply don't feel the furor common around here, by taking it case-by-case, I end up with a mixture of RIAA and indie.
Actually, you don't take it case-by-case, you just decided to ignore the issue. Which is fine, but if it quacks, name it duck. I happen to think it's better to not support the big labels, if possible, in the foreseeable future.
A decent gasoline engine won't reach 8000 RPM, either, unless you're one of those people that thinks a few more horsepower at insanely high RPM is worth having practically zero torque anywhere below 3500.
Having owned a car where the engine fits that description (1994 Acura Integra GS-R) I can tell you that they're quite fun to drive and the engine moves the car along more than fine assuming you know how to drive it. Currently I drive an American V8 and I quite enjoy that too. Either setup is a "decent" engine, before you dismiss one setup as not decent you should drive it.
I live in Saskatchewan. When it's' really cold out, you want to idle the engine for a short amount of time and then start moving slowly.
It's better for the engine to be running with a load on it, and by starting off slowly you minimize the stress on the other components as they fight against cold fluids. Transmission fluid, brake fluid, power steering fluid, suspension oil, etc....they all need to warm up.
This means that for the first 10 minutes or so I stay on residential streets, avoid sharp turns, avoid bumps as much as possible, baby the stick when shifting, etc.
Also, if you leave the heater off for the first while the engine warms up faster. You can also block off the front grille to minimize the airflow through the rad.
It's not good for the engine, but it can be done. It's easier with full synthetic oil.
Yes, I *do* ignore the label issue, because I simply don't care. By 'case-by-case', I consider on a case-by-case basis whether I like individual artists, regardless of what label type they chose to go with.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Happened to me once. The ABS kicked in during a stop on dry pavement, which increased my overall stopping distance considerably. There was no danger to me at the time, thankfully, but it could have potentially been a problem if the situation were different.
*whoosh!*