|
Guinness posted:God, American cars have fallen so far. I'm of the opinion that from the 50s to the mid 70s were the glory days of US car design with the late 60s being my favourite era. Safety standards for drivers and pedestrians have essentially ruined design, I have friends studying automotive design and the 'rule book' on it is obscenely detailed. It offers guidelines on absolutely everything so designers basically have a template they can't veer off from unless they're pumping out limited numbers which is why super/hyper cars get away with outlandish designs still. Here's a few of the guidelines regarding exteriors: quote:18 External projections ...and that's just 'sticky out bits', there's reams of other rules and regulations these days dictating EVERYTHING to the point where designing a car these days is complete nightmare. I long for the days of single-designer cars where they could just make whatever they imagined instead of being let off the leash once every few years to design a really nice concept that then gets dumbed down and essentially shat out into the world. This car today? Impossible to sell, has a hood ornament to tear up peds (though quite why you're hitting them is another argument entirely) among other features to catch a human. Which is a shame because look at how cool it is.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 11:33 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 06:42 |
|
Well, they can't stop assholes from hitting pedestrians or stop pedestrians from getting hit, so now whatever gets hit must be safe. It sucks, but it is for the greater good My favorite, probably apocryphal, story about ugly safety standards goes something like, "In 2000-whatever the NHTSA read the all of the reports about rollovers and came to 5 distinct conclusions about how rollovers are caused and what makes a rollover more fatal than regular crashes: #1 Distracted, impaired, and unskilled drivers inadvertently created the conditions for rollovers #2 Worn tires and suspension components can make vehicles behave unpredictably and can cause drivers to rollover #3 Road conditions and damaged roadways contribute as much, if not more than tire and suspension components create to rollover conditions #4 Excessive speed makes rollovers more likely to be fatal than low speed incidents. #5 The majority of fatal injuries resulted from the overturned vehicle coming to rest upon the occupants, not the rollover itself Now they had to find the cheapest, easiest way to save as many lives as possible. First off, there was no way to make people not suck as drivers, so that was immediately tossed. Tires and repairs cost people money, so that idea wasn't going to get enough public support, and was junked. States didn't have money for real inspections and definitely didn't have anything for more road maintenance, so that was out. No one can actually get drivers to just stop speeding, including with the threat of heavy fines or jail time, so that was out too. And that's how we ended up having cars with massive pillars able to support the entire weight of the car when they rolled over, since automakers would be responsible for making any expensive changes and would be seen as irresponsible for even attempting to fight the proposed regulations."
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 12:58 |
|
The Door Frame posted:
With the wording of #5 it sound more like ejected passengers being squashed by the car they were thrown from, how does thicker pillars help there? Unless it means the mass of the overturned vehicle crushes the occupants against the ground(via the roof)?
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 14:40 |
|
cakesmith handyman posted:With the wording of #5 it sound more like ejected passengers being squashed by the car they were thrown from, how does thicker pillars help there? The latter, car pillars used to not be able to support the weight of the car when rolled over so they would flatten and crush the occupants. Now they need to be able to support the weight and be strong enough to not distort in a crash so the passenger cabin remains the same size. Minaly to stop things like the 106/Saxo where if you had a front end crash the engine would be pushed past the firewall into the lap of those in the front.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 15:03 |
|
TotalLossBrain posted:... The ingenious solution is to inject water into the head pipe (transition from exhaust manifold to tuned chamber) on a sort of RPM-dependent curve. The water cools the exhaust gases down, consequently slowing them down, effectively lengthening the pipe. Fun fact - towards the end of the last naturally aspirated era in F-1, they were experimenting with doing the same thing for the same reason.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 15:04 |
|
The Door Frame posted:It's possible that I have. I also really want to have a pickup that I can enjoy driving, but since small trucks like Rangers and S-10's died out, and American trucks are now similar in size or larger larger than the comically oversized Hummer H1, I resent every backwards aspect of their designs. More than just the lackluster aesthetic or driving performance aspects of their design, I dunno man, maybe pickup trucks just aren't really well suited for "driving performance"? But I'm sure it because of argle bargle government motors Test drive a Honda Ridgeline.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 15:04 |
|
The Door Frame posted:It's possible that I have. I also really want to have a pickup that I can enjoy driving, but since small trucks like Rangers and S-10's died out, and American trucks are now similar in size or larger larger than the comically oversized Hummer H1, I resent every backwards aspect of their designs. More than just the lackluster aesthetic or driving performance aspects of their design, the American Truck also has a large tax protecting them from competition and relaxed emissions and crash test standards that allows them to not have to worry about changing their outdated designs. Especially frustrating since they're expected to be both commercial and passenger vehicles, despite the fact that so few consumers use them for anything other than commuting. Have you driven a Ranger? I had a 98, 4x4, 4L, stick shift. It was horrid. Bad economy (14-16 mpg), noisy, low capability both in the bed and for towing, and constantly needing front end parts because Ford couldn't built one right. I had to disassemble the hubs to make the axle lock reliably. Ford didn't update the design to make it better, they just permanently locked the hubs on the newer ones. Dear God, my '15 GMC 2500hd is 30x the truck. I also get 20 mpg out of it. The Transit connect isn't a Ranger replacement, it's much more a Euro-style tradesman vehicle. I worked out of full-size vans, and they worked for what I did (towing boats and scientific gear), but they're massive overkill for most handymen and contractors. If regular people wanted something to put stuff in and drive normally, there would be more wagons on the market. The manufacturers do a lot of market research, and they make what people want. Mostly, that's sedans. Wagons and hatchbacks don't sell that well, sadly. I adore my Fit, but it's a niche car.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 16:20 |
|
Counterpoint: Rangers are awesome. I had a 2000 2.5L and loved every minute of it. I've got a 2011 F150 ecoboost now and it's a fantastic vehicle but sometimes I wish I just had a small truck again.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 16:30 |
|
sharkytm posted:Have you driven a Ranger? I had a 98, 4x4, 4L, stick shift. It was horrid. Bad economy (14-16 mpg), noisy, low capability both in the bed and for towing, and constantly needing front end parts because Ford couldn't built one right. I had to disassemble the hubs to make the axle lock reliably. Ford didn't update the design to make it better, they just permanently locked the hubs on the newer ones. Dear God, my '15 GMC 2500hd is 30x the truck. I also get 20 mpg out of it. Despite wagons being what they actually need, consumers prefer to buy a giant pickup or massive SUV, because 'Merica. I think the current Ford Transit Connect, and the small Nissan and Dodge vans are a fantastic idea. We don;t need more large vehicles on the already crowded roads (says the guy who drives a Crown Vic...)
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 17:52 |
|
GnarlyCharlie4u posted:Counterpoint: If Ford would bring over the European Ranger with a 4-banger Ecoboost, I bet they could sell it. How are Chevy's sales with the Colorado? The problem I have with the Colorado is that it's not that much cheaper than the full-size, and it's pretty much as big as a full-size pickup was 20 years ago. It's going to take another gas crises/crunch to make them smaller again.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 17:55 |
|
Darchangel posted:Despite wagons being what they actually need, consumers prefer to buy a giant pickup or massive SUV, because 'Merica. This is dumb way of thinking and we really need to move on past this. There are advantages to the sitting higher up for great visibilty in traffic that a crossover brings. Ditto to the increased suspension travel and ability to deal with potholes and roadworks. Crossovers are easier to get into and out of, especially for older folks etc. etc. I prefer to stick to small cars and sedans. But when I get in my dad's S10, I get it.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 17:56 |
|
Comfort at the cost of safety is dumb though??? Not a conversation for this thread, however.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 18:00 |
|
Live free, drive in style, go out like Walker.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 18:10 |
|
Walker ain't much of a role model since he died as a piece of bacon. Try for Senna or something if you want to die in a car.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 18:16 |
|
um excuse me posted:Comfort at the cost of safety is dumb though??? The point you're trying to make is dumb and doesn't really exist??? Crossovers and pickups are pretty safe these days. Furthermore this is AI where we love 80's crapcans and the Miata is basically our mascot. Neither of those two groups of vehicles are known for their safety, so is safety really a big concern around here?
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 18:22 |
|
Darchangel posted:If Ford would bring over the European Ranger with a 4-banger Ecoboost, I bet they could sell it. How are Chevy's sales with the Colorado? The Global Ranger (calling it European is, odd...) is coming and likely with the 2.3 EB as one of the engine options. Personally, I hope it gets the 3.3 V6 from the F-150. As for the Colorado, they sell them about as fast as they can make them last I checked. To the point that even over a year after it debuted Chevy wasn't offering any cash on the hood. I think the Colorado is the entire reason we're getting Ranger. In the same way that the G8 is why we never got the Falcon.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 18:32 |
|
Coredump posted:The point you're trying to make is dumb and doesn't really exist??? Crossovers and pickups are pretty safe these days. Furthermore this is AI where we love 80's crapcans and the Miata is basically our mascot. Neither of those two groups of vehicles are known for their safety, so is safety really a big concern around here? Not what I was getting at. But OK.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 18:34 |
|
um excuse me posted:Not what I was getting at. But OK. What were you trying to get at?
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 18:46 |
|
Q_res posted:The Global Ranger (calling it European is, odd...) is coming and likely with the 2.3 EB as one of the engine options. Personally, I hope it gets the 3.3 V6 from the F-150. My friend has a new Colorado, they're the size of an F150 when the Ranger was a small truck. To say that their existence is why the Ranger is coming back is a bit strange.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 18:50 |
|
Imagine the sort of mileage that would be possible from a modern truck the size of the Chevy Luv or trucks that size?
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 18:53 |
|
quote:The manufacturers do a lot of market research, and they make what people want. Mostly, that's sedans. Wagons and hatchbacks don't sell that well, sadly. I adore my Fit, but it's a niche car. The manufacturers also like to sell vehicles with greater profit margins, if you can put your advertising dollars into selling a truck with a 65% profit or a compact car with a 5% margin you're mad not to push trucks like crazy. You can also easily stack $30k in extras into a truck
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 18:59 |
|
Coredump posted:Imagine the sort of mileage that would be possible from a modern truck the size of the Chevy Luv or trucks that size?
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 18:59 |
|
EightBit posted:My friend has a new Colorado, they're the size of an F150 when the Ranger was a small truck. To say that their existence is why the Ranger is coming back is a bit strange. It's not strange at all. The new Ranger is only slightly smaller than the Colorado, and Ford's contention was always that it was too close in both size and price to the F-150 to make sense in the US market. The Colorado proved that a truck in that size and price bracket can work in the US. Yep, real strange...
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 19:03 |
|
The reason there hasn't been any real competition or advancement in the American Truck Market since 1963 is because of the Chicken Tax. Did everyone forget about that? Anyway, remove the Chicken Tax and things will improve for the consumer, but none of the Big Three are going to support that (except for maybe Sergio Marchionne), because why would they?
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 19:05 |
|
Jackie the Mick posted:The reason there hasn't been any real competition or advancement in the American Truck Market since 1963 is because of the Chicken Tax. The same market that has an aluminum-bodied pickup with a twin-turbo V6 that can make 6.2L V8 level torque and get 5.0L V8 level gas mileage, as well as an aluminum-bodied heavy duty pickup that can back in a trailer on its own? What planet do you people live on?
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 19:09 |
|
Jackie the Mick posted:The reason there hasn't been any real competition or advancement in the American Truck Market since 1963 is because of the Chicken Tax. Did everyone forget about that? Anyway, remove the Chicken Tax and things will improve for the consumer, but none of the Big Three are going to support that (except for maybe Sergio Marchionne), because why would they? Not saying you're wrong but can you elaborate on how the chicken tax would prevent Big Three from trying to make small trucks again? I feel like that's due more to EPA regulations and such but I dunno.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 19:09 |
|
Q_res posted:The same market that has an aluminum-bodied pickup with a twin-turbo V6 that can make 6.2L V8 level torque and get 5.0L V8 level gas mileage, as well as an aluminum-bodied heavy duty pickup that can back in a trailer on its own? Hey, you know that vehicle with the 2.7 liter turbo engine that does 0-60 in 5 seconds and runs a 14 second quarter mile? Well, it's an f-150. On the other hand, how about the vehicle with the 3.6 liter n/a V6 that does 0-60 in 7 seconds and runs a 15.5 second quarter mile? Well, that's the fastest subaru legacy you can buy.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 19:18 |
|
Coredump posted:Not saying you're wrong but can you elaborate on how the chicken tax would prevent Big Three from trying to make small trucks again? I feel like that's due more to EPA regulations and such but I dunno. Probably because the market isn't big enough for the Big Three to fool with (or at least they think it isn't big enough), but a small-volume importer could do very well with it.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 19:22 |
|
Coredump posted:Not saying you're wrong but can you elaborate on how the chicken tax would prevent Big Three from trying to make small trucks again? I feel like that's due more to EPA regulations and such but I dunno. Basically, the chicken tax is a 25% tariff on all imported pickups and commercial vans. Which means there is far less competition and American companies can just kick back and not really innovate. I mean, they only really have to compete with themselves and keep up with federal regulations (which is why we are finally getting engine options that aren't iron block pushrods, and futuristic materials for the body panels like aluminum!). It also means that foreign companies spend most of their efforts coming up with ways to get around the Chicken Tax rather than making better products necessarily. (E.g. the Subaru Brat, Toyota shipping truck over in parts then assembling them here, the Ford Transit that they ship over with seats, take the seats out, then ship the seats back to be reused ad nauseam.) Since there is no reason to innovate, or spend money on a completely new platform that can pass new federal regulations in a segment that isn't as purely profitable as the full sized truck market, they just aren't going to bother making one. It's not like Hyundai are going to see that market vacancy and be able to fill it and make a profit when the tariff will make their small cheaply made truck cost as much or more than a full-sized truck. Was that clear? I'm supposed to be working right now, so I'm a bit distracted.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 19:36 |
|
I hope you're not as bad as your job as you are at making an argument, but the fact that you're spending this much time on a losing argument instead of working suggests you just might be. Toyota can do whatever they want to make the tacoma better, and the f-150 is still miles ahead. They could use all that amazing technology they're putting into non-Us market toyota pickups and put it into the tacoma and crush everybody and win a trophy and stuff, but somehow they won't
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 19:42 |
|
quote:which is why we are finally getting engine options that aren't iron block pushrods This new internet thing is pretty wild huh? Anyway, Happy New Year 1997 looks to be a good one! Seriously... Q_res fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Feb 3, 2017 |
# ? Feb 3, 2017 20:14 |
|
Enourmo posted:E: Think of it like tuning intake runners. You generally optimize for power at peak RPM. There are a number of motorcycles (08+ R6, for one) with variable length intake runners that are controlled by the ECU. There are also variable length intake manifolds for cars (BMW does this on the M54, which is one that I know of) and there are also cars with variable length intake manifolds paired to two different sized intake ports that are switched (BMW does this on the 6cyl diesel). BlackMK4 fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Feb 4, 2017 |
# ? Feb 3, 2017 21:27 |
|
Have we mentioned the new episode/season of Mighty Car Mods yet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ8RLM8eWRU
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 21:53 |
|
Coredump posted:This is dumb way of thinking and we really need to move on past this. There are advantages to the sitting higher up for great visibilty in traffic that a crossover brings. Ditto to the increased suspension travel and ability to deal with potholes and roadworks. Crossovers are easier to get into and out of, especially for older folks etc. etc. Crossovers are tolerable. Most aren't huge, and they're basically tall wagons, though you'd better not say that out loud. "Wagons" are uncool, like "minivans". Q_res posted:The Global Ranger (calling it European is, odd...) is coming and likely with the 2.3 EB as one of the engine options. Personally, I hope it gets the 3.3 V6 from the F-150. Sorry, yeah, Global is what I meant. Coredump posted:Crossovers and pickups are pretty safe these days. Not for anyone that's *not* in a pickup or other tall vehicle. quote:Furthermore this is AI where we love 80's crapcans and the Miata is basically our mascot. Neither of those two groups of vehicles are known for their safety, so is safety really a big concern around here? Maybe not for us, but it is for the buying public. We also like wagons, which apparently aren't sellers, either. Q_res posted:It's not strange at all. The new Ranger is only slightly smaller than the Colorado, and Ford's contention was always that it was too close in both size and price to the F-150 to make sense in the US market. The Colorado proved that a truck in that size and price bracket can work in the US. By the same token, the Tacoma isn't really significantly smaller, either, and is still spendy. Jackie the Mick posted:Basically, the chicken tax is a 25% tariff on all imported pickups and commercial vans. Which means there is far less competition and American companies can just kick back and not really innovate. I mean, they only really have to compete with themselves and keep up with federal regulations (which is why we are finally getting engine options that aren't iron block pushrods, and futuristic materials for the body panels like aluminum!). It also means that foreign companies spend most of their efforts coming up with ways to get around the Chicken Tax rather than making better products necessarily. (E.g. the Subaru Brat, Toyota shipping truck over in parts then assembling them here, the Ford Transit that they ship over with seats, take the seats out, then ship the seats back to be reused ad nauseam.) Since there is no reason to innovate, or spend money on a completely new platform that can pass new federal regulations in a segment that isn't as purely profitable as the full sized truck market, they just aren't going to bother making one. It's not like Hyundai are going to see that market vacancy and be able to fill it and make a profit when the tariff will make their small cheaply made truck cost as much or more than a full-sized truck. I'm not arguing against your point, as I think it's valid, but Ford has had overhead cams since 1996 or so, albeit still iron block. edit: whoah, older than I though. First introduced in the 1991 Town Car! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 22:39 |
|
Darchangel posted:
I know. I just typed it all out as quickly as I could and originally wrote pushrod, meant to delete it and write iron block, but I hosed it up. Too late to fix it now.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 22:45 |
|
BlackMK4 posted:There are a number of motorcycles (08+ R6, for one) with variable length intake runners that are controlled by the ECU. There are also variable length intake manifolds for cars (BMW does this on the M54, which is one that I know of) and there are also cars with variable length intake manifolds paired to two different sized intake ports that are switched (BMW does this on the v6 diesel). My Protege has a system called Variable Intake Charging System. It uses dummy runners; air doesn't actually flow through them, they're just a static cavity that's the right length to tune for high-rpm running. It's identical to the N/A model, dunno how the density boost from the turbo would affect wave velocity.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 23:20 |
|
Enourmo posted:My Protege has a system called Variable Intake Charging System. It uses dummy runners; air doesn't actually flow through them, they're just a static cavity that's the right length to tune for high-rpm running. That's pretty cool, I'd seen that done on an intake manifold for a L28 motor by some engineer dude a while back. SCIENCE
|
# ? Feb 3, 2017 23:41 |
|
Jackie the Mick posted:I know. I just typed it all out as quickly as I could and originally wrote pushrod, meant to delete it and write iron block, but I hosed it up. Too late to fix it now. Eh, no big. I probably wouldn't have noticed, except I actually own a Ferd Crown Vic with the 4.6. And looking at the list in that Wiki article, I need to find a 4.6 Exploder engine - they got the 3-valve and 290 HP. Or a Mustang, I suppose. I will not mod the daily, I will not mod the daily, I will not mod the daily, I will not mod the daily...
|
# ? Feb 4, 2017 00:43 |
|
Darchangel posted:Eh, no big. I probably wouldn't have noticed, except I actually own a Ferd Crown Vic with the 4.6. It's safe to mod the daily if you have something else to drive in the mean time.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2017 00:45 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 06:42 |
|
Enourmo posted:My Protege has a system called Variable Intake Charging System. It uses dummy runners; air doesn't actually flow through them, they're just a static cavity that's the right length to tune for high-rpm running. My S5 RX-7 actually does have a dual-length intake manifold. there's a barrel valve that switches the path at a certain RPM. Doesn't do as much on mine as it should, because my auxiliary ports (think VTEC, insofar as the ports provide more advanced intake timing and larger volume) are stuck closed.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2017 00:46 |