Advances in technology..apart from fuel economy?

[RedLexus]

Was chatting about advances in car design and technology the other day with some mates , after spending the week driving around in this little baby ....

....


1.6 , 8v , super basic fuel and spark control . A hoot to drive , but thats off the point... How come modern cars , with all their super duper enviromentally friendly bumf are shag all easier on juice?
Like safety , handling , bhp , smoothness etc are increasing every year , but realistically if MPG was to have improved like power outputs and refinement have , we should all have 75 mpg cars!

[George]

red - i saw a beautiful mk1 golf in oranmore last week but by the time i stopped it was gone. Now sure what year but it was white and stunning. A lot of TLC was put into her

[Gussy]

Originally Posted by RedLexus

Was chatting about advances in car design and technology the other day with some mates , after spending the week driving around in this little baby ....

....


1.6 , 8v , super basic fuel and spark control . A hoot to drive , but thats off the point... How come modern cars , with all their super duper enviromentally friendly bumf are shag all easier on juice?
Like safety , handling , bhp , smoothness etc are increasing every year , but realistically if MPG was to have improved like power outputs and refinement have , we should all have 75 mpg cars!

I think maybe it's quite a bit to do with the weight of the new cars. The size, safety features, extras etc. all add weight. Many modern sporty cars tip the scales these days at 1500 kgs for example.

Many of them are quite a bit better on juice though, there are many 2 litre petrol engines out there now that will tip the 40 mpg mark.

[Stigisimo]

I think there's a lot to it really. Look at the Carina E from 15 years ago. 2 litre diesel, probably got a good 50mpg, and produced probably in the region of 70bhp.
Now look at the Avensis. Twice the bhp, still around 50mpg, maybe a little less, refinement on a whole new level, safety on a whole new level, much more spacious inside, and the suspension sophistication leaps and bounds ahead.
The advantage of old school simplicity like the Mk1 Golf is the direct and mechanical feel to it all. The disadvantage is it will really feel like the car is falling apart if you take a speed ramp at 20mph, or go over a really rough patch of ground at 25mph. On the other end of the scale, cornering at 80mph on a long sweeping bend is probably impossible, and if it was changing direction quickly or stamping on the brakes would result in death.
Compare that to the Mk5 Golf. 25mph rough road feels bumpy, but not uncomfortably so. Everything feels well damped and in control. The dash doesn't squeak or rattle. The sound deadening is excellent and if you take the same sweeping bend at 80mph you probably don't even notice that you're over the speed limit. Stamp on the brakes and the ABS lets you still steer, the suspension doesn't cause the back to want to flip over the front and send you hedgeward, and you get stopped without too much fuss. The disadvantage is the removed feeling. People have gotten used to comfort and quietness in their cars, and that's what sells. The few who want the latest and greatest but still with no frills and mechanical feel buy Lotus Elises, the rest buy classics.

[roscosera]

Originally Posted by Stigisimo

I think there's a lot to it really. Look at the Carina E from 15 years ago. 2 litre diesel, probably got a good 50mpg, and produced probably in the region of 70bhp.
Now look at the Avensis. Twice the bhp, still around 50mpg, maybe a little less, refinement on a whole new level, safety on a whole new level, much more spacious inside, and the suspension sophistication leaps and bounds ahead.
The advantage of old school simplicity like the Mk1 Golf is the direct and mechanical feel to it all. The disadvantage is it will really feel like the car is falling apart if you take a speed ramp at 20mph, or go over a really rough patch of ground at 25mph. On the other end of the scale, cornering at 80mph on a long sweeping bend is probably impossible, and if it was changing direction quickly or stamping on the brakes would result in death.
Compare that to the Mk5 Golf. 25mph rough road feels bumpy, but not uncomfortably so. Everything feels well damped and in control. The dash doesn't squeak or rattle. The sound deadening is excellent and if you take the same sweeping bend at 80mph you probably don't even notice that you're over the speed limit. Stamp on the brakes and the ABS lets you still steer, the suspension doesn't cause the back to want to flip over the front and send you hedgeward, and you get stopped without too much fuss. The disadvantage is the removed feeling. People have gotten used to comfort and quietness in their cars, and that's what sells. The few who want the latest and greatest but still with no frills and mechanical feel buy Lotus Elises, the rest buy classics.

very good post stigisimo.

if fuel economy was the only factor that had to be improved upon, then they could all be producing 120mpg cars... after over 100 years of development and evolution, internal combustion engines have become extremely efficient, and if a brand new modern engine was fitted to a car as light as a caterham but with the aerodynamics to match, the mpg would be unbelievable.
but consumers are generally not prepared to compromise safety and comfort/convenience/refinement.
car manufacturers will develop and design their cars in accordance with what the consumers demand, and with fuel prices being so low (in comparison to what they will be in years to come) 40 or 50 mpg is perfectly acceptable.

personally i see in years to come, a lot of the electrical conveniences that we see in cars today will start to decline. for instance: electric windows etc: its not that much hassle to just roll up a window yourself.
when all these conveniences (which could be done without) add up, you are left not only with a car that is much much heavier (and therefore less fuel efficient) than it needs to be!!.... but also a very complex machine that most of the time requires trained experts to repair when some superflous system fails.

i rekon that in the future, simplicity and clever design will become the new major selling point ie: people will seldom have to pay the car dealerships astronomical money to repair a system which is not essential to the car doing its job in the first place.

that tata nano may be a piece of dirt, but i actually like it because its a step in the right direction. its sole purpouse is to be cheap and therefore upgrade indians from motorbikes to cars, but its by-products are fuel efficiency and simplicity. the latter meaning that it will be endlessly recycled in keeping with indian motoring culture.

it is simply not viable to keep maintaining a western oriented car once it goes past a certain condition which leads to huge waste.

the nano is fuel efficient because it does without nearly any extras. its engine is not particularly fuel efficient, or refined for that matter... these are the downsides of the main priority being cost.

if a western auto manufacturer took the same approach it would not have to worry so much about cost, and could spend money making each car look attractive... put efficient engines in them, and make them as safe as possible using as little material as possible. this would test the designers ingenuity to the limit, but as the reality of peak oil starts to hit home, the market will shift, and people will buy cars like this.

not because they will care less about safety or refinement, but because its the only way they will be able to afford to commute.

[junior]

Why does safety = heavy ?

[Vti Boy]

Originally Posted by junior

Why does safety = heavy ?

I'll go with,

The addition of mutiple air bags.
Adding strengthening (spelling) beams to provide better cabin rigidity.
Adding seatbelt pretensioners.
Adding ABS.

Not exactly a concrete answer but without actually knowing the weights of such items I'd geusstimate there heavy.

[junior]

But surely with all the advances in technology weight should be going down, better metal processes, better sources of metal, better material for manufacture..

[RedLexus]

Originally Posted by roscosera

very good post stigisimo.



that tata nano may be a piece of dirt, but i actually like it because its a step in the right direction. its sole purpouse is to be cheap and therefore upgrade indians from motorbikes to cars, but its by-products are fuel efficiency and simplicity. the latter meaning that it will be endlessly recycled in keeping with indian motoring culture.


the nano is fuel efficient because it does without nearly any extras. its engine is not particularly fuel efficient, or refined for that matter... these are the downsides of the main priority being cost.
.

I agree , simplicity once again would be welcomed in the auto industry . Like , I'm working as a mechanic since I was in school , (30 yrs old now!) , a woman rang the other day to say there was various warning lights on the dash of her 2 year old motorhome , and I honestly could do nothing bar tell her to take it to the local main dealer .

[RedLexus]

Originally Posted by junior

But surely with all the advances in technology weight should be going down, better metal processes, better sources of metal, better material for manufacture..

The more efficient and lighter materials , plus the processes needed to shape or mould them cost more than the equivalent in old fashioned steel . Also the re-tooling needed to go from Metal work to plastics or similar , even to change from Steel to Alloy is enormous when applied to the scale a Car factory needs.

[junior]

Right, so they are using the same methods, machinery and steel from the 60's as they are now ?

[RedLexus]

sadly...pretty much!

[roscosera]

Originally Posted by junior

Why does safety = heavy ?

you may have seen this vid already.... it shows how big and heavy doesnt always mean safe

YouTube - Fifth Gear - Renault Modus v Volvo 940 Crash Test

YouTube - Fifth Gear - Renault Modus v Volvo 940 Crash Test

[Stigisimo]

Originally Posted by RedLexus

The more efficient and lighter materials , plus the processes needed to shape or mould them cost more than the equivalent in old fashioned steel . Also the re-tooling needed to go from Metal work to plastics or similar , even to change from Steel to Alloy is enormous when applied to the scale a Car factory needs.

True. When they use alluminium you're at the level of car like the NSX, Audi A8, that sort of thing where they can throw 4 grand onto the price to recoup the costs. Try that with the new Mazda 2 for example and it'll be maybe 100kgs lighter than a fiesta, no one will care, but they'll all notice that it's 5k more expensive for only 2 more mpg!

[roscosera]

yes but the likes of an audi a8 or honda nsx are relatively conventional in their chassis construction, material apart.
the epoxy bonded aluminium chassis of the lotus elise was pretty innovative and obviously not outragously expensive. i know its a 2 seater convertable and its nowhere as light as a caterham. another point is that the bare bones look of the interior may make it look like it would be useless in a crash.... not a virtue desired in mazda 2's or cars like that.
but having conventional dashboard and doorcards etc, while it may lead you to feel safer, theyre not going to help you in a crash

[RedLexus]

Originally Posted by roscosera

you may have seen this vid already.... it shows how big and heavy doesnt always mean safe

yes but the technology is decades apart.

Originally Posted by roscosera

the epoxy bonded aluminium chassis of the lotus elise was pretty innovative and obviously not outragously expensive.

little known fact that they had to recall loads of them where the glue started pulling away!

[roscosera]

about the technology being decades apart.... thats exactly my point... clever crash structures and designs which spread and distribute impact energy count for more that simply bulk (up to a point.)
still though... even with the new technology you'd think the volvo would have mangled the renault!!!

and i didnt know that about the elise being recalled. a glued chassis sounds fair dodgy doesnt it? :P
that happens quite a lot with new car models though. the last of the line model in a range (ie: just before they are replaced) are always the best as they have ironed out the problems.

my point is that combustion engines are highly evolved now, and although there are still innovations to be discovered regarding engines... theres still much more innovation yet to be had in chassis design.

[RedLexus]

Originally Posted by roscosera

about the technology being decades apart.... thats exactly my point... clever crash structures and designs which spread and distribute impact energy count for more that simply bulk (up to a point.)
still though... even with the new technology you'd think the volvo would have mangled the renault!!!

Oh I'm not disagreeing with you Ross!

[Vegeta]

Not trying to derail the thread but isn't there only like 200-300 kg between the Renault and the Volvo in the video above

That's only 3-4 adults. So if the Renault had 3 adult males in it, they'd be roughly the same weight.

[roscosera]

Originally Posted by RedLexus

Oh I'm not disagreeing with you Ross!

i know, i just like talking about this subject because im doing a project on it in college