It’s doubtful that the AC-Delco engineers who devised the first electronic ignition system in 1961 envisioned the automotive revolution to follow. By then automobiles’ basic technological framework was well-established (piston engines, welded steel bodies, pneumatic tires, hydraulic brakes, etc.). Electronic ignition probably seemed like just another incremental improvement. Instead, electronics enabled quantum leaps in automotive performance, safety, comfort, efficiency and environmental impact. No other technology has been nearly so transformational.
Popular culture remembers the 1960s ‘horsepower war’ as the Golden Age of automotive performance. But twenty-first century cars with performance aspirations handily dust those Beatles-era relics. Compare the gas-guzzling smog-belching 1964 Pontiac GTO Tri-Power. We’re talking about a 280hp (SAE net) vehicle that does the quarter-mile in 14.8 seconds. Compare that to the 20+ mpg Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) Mazdaspeed3. The 263hp Japanese hot hatch will do the quarter in 14.2 seconds.
How about a 1965 L78-engine Chevrolet Corvette compared to a 2006 Corvette Z06. You’re looking at 340hp vs. 505 hp, 0-60 in 5.7 vs. 3.6 seconds. No contest. We live in a fabulous age of 200hp Honda Civics, 300hp 3-Series BMWs, 400hp luxury sedans and 1000hp Bugatti Veyrons.
Even better: aside from the dangers of a lost license, modern muscle is almost consequence-free. Today’s power comes with reasonable fuel efficiency, squeaky-clean exhaust emissions, minimal maintenance and “Sure Grandma, you can borrow my car” drivability. All made possible because carburetors, distributors and mechanical linkages have been replaced by the precision dance of electronic sensors, digital computers and pulse-width-modulated solenoids.
While electronics have made engines cleaner, more reliable and increasingly powerful, the automotive safety acronym zoo (ABS, DSC, EBD, SRS, ATTESA, PSM, etc.) owes its existence to electronics. Some modern safety systems (e.g. airbags and antilock brakes) do have mechanical ancestors, but those mechanical systems were expensive, slow-acting and dubiously reliable. Reliable low-cost electronics has made those systems nearly universal in modern cars. Even the TTAC Ten Worst winning Chevrolet Aveo is graced with standard front and side airbags and optional ABS.
Strange to say, the e-ubiquity has created problems for high-end automakers. When even bargain-basement cars have state-of-the-art electronics going for them, these upscale makers need new features to justify premiums prices. Once again, electronics comes to the rescue.
The trend at the leading edge of automotive electronics: cross-system communication and integration. BMW’s rain-sensing windshield wiper system tells the ABS computer when it’s raining. The ABS computer then subtly pulses the brakes to keep the brake rotors dry. Lexus uses its adaptive cruise control system to determine if a crash is imminent. If a crash is coming, the SRS computer tightens the seatbelts and decides which airbags to deploy.
Crash a Mercedes-Benz CLK and its electronic systems automatically stop the engine, unlock the doors, turn on the emergency flashers, and provide GPS coordinates to an emergency response service. This near instantaneous safety dance would be impossible without modern electronics. The range and scope of electronic wizardry is only limited by the talent and imagination of software coders.
This electronic creeping feature-ism has also transformed the comfort and convenience of driving (or being a passenger). A plethora of entertainment and information technologies– multi-channel audio systems, on-board DVD players, GPS navigation units, OnStar, etc.– have eliminated much of the drudgery.
Even the physical effort of operating a vehicle has been minimized by electronic servants. Manually unlocking doors, manually-adjusted seats, hand-crank windows, radio tuning knobs and the like are rapidly going the way of full-size spare tire.
Approach a modern BMW while pressing ‘Unlock’ on the key fob and this modern paradigm of electronic magic goes on display. Sure, the door unlocks, but that’s just the beginning. Windows roll down. The sunroof opens. The seats, mirrors and climate control system adjust to stored settings. No need to turn the ignition lock, just stick the key in the dash slot and press the “Start” button One-touch buttons and voice recognition eliminate even the effort of changing the radio station.
Of course, this technology is mostly found on high-end cars like BMWs. But history indicates it will quickly spread to less-expensive brands. Ford has already implemented Sync voice-recognition in mass market models and Nissan’s Intelligent Key system is available throughout its model line. Wait five minutes and your personal computer gets cheaper. Wait five years and Mercedes-Benz electronics show up in your Hyundai.
This electronic dominance of our cars shows no signs of abating. Whether it’s the Toyota Prius powertrain controls, the Volvo S80 lane-departure warning system or the Chrysler Sebring’s heated cupholders, automakers keep shoveling in the wires and the microchips. They are the major reason our modern cars are so wonderful. Though not as obvious as the benefits, this electronic sophistication has drawbacks. In our next installment, we’ll see how what the boffins giveth, they also taketh away.
Good article, Eric. I find it amusing how much “value” the auto companies place on what amounts to very cheap electronics, especially entertainment and navigation systems. These days, a 3 cent IPOD jack is a big deal, and $250 Nav systems sell for 1000+, etc. I believe consumers have come to expect this level of electronic integration in their vehicles and will continue to demand more.
I retrofitted electronic ignition, from a 73 granada to a 64 fairlane, when I was in high school over 20 years ago. I could not start my car because a set of faulty points and condensor went bad in damp weather. Little did I know this was a popular improvement for older V-8 engines of all makes that was cheap, easy, and gave beter performance to boot. I also had a vacuum switch to cut out the alternator (swiped from a GT mustang) to increase power under WOT and dual battery coil boost scheme to overcome ignition coil saturation.
While I agree electronics is a great thing for cars, the next installments are sure to focus on the dark side of car electronics, pun intended.
aside from the dangers of a lost license, modern muscle is almost consequence-free.
I think that’s a pretty half-hazard statement considering the United States is one of the worst offenders of Green House gases which are emmitted from Mazdas and Corvettes alike. Sure cars are cleaner but there’s a hell of a lot more of them out on the road then there were in the 1960’s.
Then there’s the issue of dumping of electonics. Circuit boards that contain lead and other caustic metals that end up in the ground and contaminate water tables. Sure recylcing of cars has become better but we have a long way to go before we can pat ourselves on the back and call it good. The U.S. has been guilty for decades dumping old electronics (including automotive electronics)into China where regulations on how to deal with potentially caustic materials don’t even exist. To make matters worse, within the last 5 years other countries have been dumnping their garbage in China. Many parts of China are becoming uninhabitable due to the “dumping” of these materials. Sure, electronic ignitions and power windows are great unitl they end up in a landfill and in your drinking water.
So what’s the alternative? Fart powered balsa wood bicycles?
Hybrids are a good start. There is also fuel cell technology, (hydrogen) and electric technology that is evolving very rapidly. Tesla motors is a good example of what’s possible given the technology. And by the way, there are many who would benefit from a bicycle ride or two…
Then there’s the issue of dumping of electonics. Circuit boards that contain lead and other caustic metals that end up in the ground and contaminate water tables. Sure recylcing of cars has become better but we have a long way to go before we can pat ourselves on the back and call it good. The U.S. has been guilty for decades dumping old electronics (including automotive electronics)into China where regulations on how to deal with potentially caustic materials don’t even exist. To make matters worse, within the last 5 years other countries have been dumnping their garbage in China. Many parts of China are becoming uninhabitable due to the “dumping” of these materials. Sure, electronic ignitions and power windows are great unitl they end up in a landfill and in your drinking water.
I would not accuse the US of dumping in China, China is not owned by the US. You could try and address thesse concerns with the communists, but that is less healthy than drinking their water. I guess problems in other countries are our responsibility too.
Do ECU and ABS controls come out of your spigot when you turn on the faucet?
GM’s computer bus is the excuse I’ve heard as to why the Auribu/Maluria’s don’t have a navigation system, that it’s not possible to get the antenna/GPS chips to work with the system.
Why didn’t they use one of the newer, more sensitive GPS chipsets (i.e. SiRFStar III) which doesn’t require a roof-mounted antenna? Supposedly something about lead times for automotive electronics being 2-3 years.
…and then, there’s iDrive.
Last year the U.S. sent nearly 325,000 TONS of discarded electronics to China. That’s just 1 years worth. They are sent there by U.S. “recyclers” and brokers who only worry about getting rid of what they collect. Yes, that is a problem for the U.S. You’d be very surprised about what products or the materials that they are made from come out of China. Good luck buying your kids toys this year.
Let’s then focus on the 2 million tons of electronics that end up in American landfills. Everything from the keyfob remote that went through the washer to your old cell phone to your old wiper motor or ignition computer that no auto parts store wants. Those landfills aren’t in China they’re in every state.
# timoted :
December 11th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Tesla motors is a good example of what’s possible given the technology.…
Well, of course. If you can’t build and deliver vehicles then it’s rather difficult to be part of the environmental problem, isn’t it?
Last year the U.S. sent nearly 325,000 TONS of discarded electronics to China. That’s just 1 years worth. They are sent there by U.S. “recyclers” and brokers who only worry about getting rid of what they collect. Yes, that is a problem for the U.S. You’d be very surprised about what products or the materials that they are made from come out of China. Good luck buying your kids toys this year.
Again, we don’t have soveignty over China. I’m sure the UN has a few departments looking into this so we should have a solution momentarily.
Just tell me how much the extra tax will be for the proposed cleanup fund and how to pay it, that is what it all boils down to in the end. We can’t just make stuff disappear and we can’t make ethanol out of it.
But this article is about car electronics, not global waste policy. let’s keep it on topic.
Tesla was an example…not the only solution. There are many alternatives. Look.
I’ve helped a number of people troubleshoot ECU problems in cars. the ECU itself is usually A-OK, it’s the various sensors that are the problem. Engine management is a great thing until a sensor goes nuts and the computer attempts to determine what the problem is and work around it. The result can range from very good to a complete disaster. Most times the software is sophisticated enough to point to a condition that existed before the bottom fell out. Failing that, your left with diagnostic routines that may or may not point to the problem.
I read a comparison of new Shelby mustangs versus old in which the reviewer opined “which one would you rather be stuck on a road with armed with a basic tool kit”
I’ve had the joy of working in engine controls SW/HW/Cal for 25+ years. One of the main problems in automotive electrical systems is… connectors don’t.
I was fortunate to work on the first EFI Indy500 program (they were mechanical FI systems before then). I remember working in the dyno with the Penske engine builder and he was talking about how the previous year (1988) they won the 500 with one wire on the engine (it shorted the distributor to kill the engine)… and now this box with dozens of wires and sensors. The drivers loved the ECU systems as the cars could idle smoothly in the pits, and the mileage went way up.
“Crash a Mercedes-Benz CLK and its electronic systems automatically stop the engine, unlock the doors, turn on the emergency flashers, and provides GPS coordinates to an emergency response service.”
My 2003 (last gen) Durango already has this feature. If you have an accident the computer unlocks the doors and turns on all the interior lights. I don’t remember if it turns on the flashers, but the computer is smart enough to wait until the vehicle has come to a complete stop before doing the above. Since it doesn’t have navigation there is no sending of GPS coordinates.
“Wait five years and Mercedes-Benz electronics show up in your Hyundai.”
Seems like it’s wait 3 or even 2 years now.
GS650G – good point. Any consumer item should not be considered as having been fully paid for unless its disposal has also been factored in. I don’t think anyone is proposing a disposal tax but rather the original purchase price should also cover the disposal cost. For example, in Germany car companies have to take old end-of-life cars back and recycle their various components. While this does add cost to the vehicle it is a way better solution then dumping them in landfill and making our children and grand-children pay for the problem. The same should apply for all consumer goods.
There are a number of companies working on retrofiting todays electronics into older cars. Call it electronic hot rodding. A friend completed a shelby roadster kit car and it has fuel injection with an ECU. 18 MPG, perfect drivability, 340 RWHP on tap, doesn’t even have a choke on the engine.
Great editorial Eric!
All vehicles are increasingly becoming an “elecronic platform” that is propriatery to the manufacturer.
Its relatively easy to increase the level of intercommunicating electronic features in any vehicle. Just like its increasingly frustrating and time consuming to repair these vehicles if somehting goe wrong with the elctronics.
This high level of electronics diminishes the sense of danger that is involved in operating/driving a vehicle. Most folks feel more secure than they are, and less aware of what can happen while travelling at 80 mph.
The electronics also give a false sense of security to people that operate vehicles in winter climates. They think that ABS-ESP-4 wheel drive will get them out of situations, or overcome the laws of physics.
Electronics have enabled a quantum leap in engine and vehicle performance, as well as a quantum leap in making vehicles seem less dangerous, and artificially enable and distract drivers.
Timoted,
If you have a solution propose it. Just realize that if you make our country into one like China you won’t get the results you are looking for.
Yes, the US is a huge end user of everything bad for the environment, but over all we are also the best at cleaning it up. The difference in the US is that the bad things we do are in the newspapers and on television. Not so for all the rest of the world.
As for telling people to “look” for all the alternatives, that is just a cop out. You know the alternatives aren’t all that great, so you don’t give specifics. We talk a lot about politics here, but we are car guys who mostly have a very practical outlook. We look for results, not intentions. People who “care” about the environment get few points for their efforts. Those who have concrete and practical ideas that will likely work are the ones we are looking for. Heck, we have guys here that drive a Prius and voted for Bush. The jury may be out on some battery issues, but overall, you will find that most of us here appreciate the Prius as a good car.
So, if you think there is a better mouse trap out there, speak up.
Ditto what Landcrusher said.
All I have done here is present facts. I have not given any information that is not easily verified. My point being is that there’s a catch to the electronic innovation. There are consquences that arise as a result of the innovation. It’s not free. I don’t claim to have all the answers however, I myself take action on how I choose to deal in my daily transactions. Where does the waste go and how it is dealt with.
You can’t always expect for someone to hand you a solution. I’m merely pointing out that there is a responsibility for everyone that is a receipient of the innovation at hand. If anything it maybe gives those who read this something to think about the next time they toss out their old cell phone, Ipod or ignition module.
It’s difficult to have discussions about some things when Greenpeace shows up and steers the conversation to global issues. There are entire websites devoted to that, we don’t need more of it.
Back to the electronics debate.
One consequence of all the electronics in cars has been the demands on the electrical system. where 35 amp alternators were considered enough now 100 or even 120 amp alternators are needed. All of these gadgets take a little more power, the charging system has to keep up in addition to charging the battery after a start. The power distribution centers look more like the box in your house. Where old cars had a few fuses under the dash for lights and things tody there are multiple fuseboxes, fusible links and even circuit breakers.
Landcrusher – while I don’t necessarily agree with Timoted, please don’t equate environmental responsibilty with living in a communist dictatorship (as that is also a cop out). I would also contest that the United States is a leader in environemntal responsibility. Europe leads the the US by a significant margin when it comes to environmental responsibility (and please note that they live in a wealthy, free and democratic society).
Sure caring for the environemnt is more expensive than trashing it but it would be sad if we have become not only the wealthiest generation in this nations history (on the back of the sactifices made by previous generations) but also the first who refuse to help the next.
“Heck, we have guys here that drive a Prius and voted for Bush.”
and i know a few folks that drive Suburbans that voted for Gore, in fact the most liberal guy I know drives a 1985 truck that I am sure gets about 10mpg.
According to him as long as his portfolio grows he is not really concerned about the small stuff.
Timoted — I agree that the US has irrational and harmful policies for disposing of its consumer goods and that includes both cars and electronics.
However, that was outside the scope of my article.
Also, picture what the world would look like if the automotive electronics revolution had NOT occurred. Think how much smoggier our cities would be, how much more oil would be consumed and how many more people would be dead or maimed because of car crashes. Electronics eliminated a large portion of those negative consequences.
The subject of automotive recycling would probably make a great TTAC article. Perhaps you should submit the idea to Mr. Farago.
AGR, starlightmica, GS650G — You are foreshadowing the next 2 installments of the series (quit stealing my thunder! [joking])
windswords – That’s the problem for BMW, MBZ, Audi, etc. It’s getting harder and harder to stay ahead of their cheaper competitors.
all of this electronic geewhizzery just pisses me off. That’s why my ideal car is a mechanical fuel injection, no power steering, unreliably heated, air cooled mid 80s Porsche 911.
ABS was developed by Bosch and Mercedes-Benz if anyone remembers M-B was the first manufacturer to offer ABS brakes on selected S Class cars in 1985 in North America.
At that time M-B for its cooperation in the developement asked for and received exclusive use of Bosch ABS for 18 months. These exclusivities no longer exist, technology (electronics) migrates very quickly especially with the limited number of global suppliers.
Alternators replaced generators very quickly in the space of 2 years, electronic ingnitions with modules replaced ignition points quickly.
Manufacturers use electronics as a competitive advantage, and part of the value proposition.
i wish that a solid and unadorned vehicle were for sale. the only stripped down cars are cheap pieces of crap.
the expensive cars are cheap pieces of crap with lots of gagetry.
give me a bombproof car that has one knob that goes from blue to red, one that goes from “lo” to “hi”, and one that directs airflow.
NickNick – Get yourself a 1996 Toyota Tacoma. It has a fuel injection computer, but the transmission still uses a manual valve and a throttle-valve cable. Climate control is 4 manual levers + A/C button. The radio is whatever DIN-standard aftermarket unit you install.
.
Sorry, I’m not selling mine….:-D…
On the whole, europe is not more environmentally responsible than us. They are more environmentally voiced, but they ain’t winning. Their trash just goes to other places, like much of ours does (If the car is recyclable, but rots in Africa instead of being recycled, I don’t think that counts). Yes, they do generally recycle more, but this is a matter of practicality, not benevolence. In the end, they do what makes sense, or it fails.
Europe has a lot of differences to most of the US. If you go to parts of the US where they have things in common with the europeans, you generally find that they take much of the same measures of recycling, public transportation, and vehicle choice.
Almost all of europeans’ willingness to go along with their measures stems from high fuel taxes. At the same time, most of their ills come from similarly high income taxes. In the US, every good idea to help conservation is struck down by the left, who only want conservation to work by taking property away from “rich” people. Then they use phony stats to make everyone who is productive in the country feel they are “rich”. It’s not a lot different than the methodology used by the church to keep power for centuries.
I equate environmentalism with socialism for a good reason. The environmentalists use the government to attempt to force their ideas on the rest of us. If all they did was spread their faith like the other religions did, I would have no qualms. They talk about how if we ALL did what they want, the world would be so much better. Or, if we don’t we are doomed. That’s a religion. When you take it up with the legislature, or tie up the courts because of it, you are no different than a theocrat.
When you can show good results, people will generally go along. When you can tie the results directly to the actions, so that it works like capitalism, rather than autocracy, you will get great results. Making byzantine declarations and laws gets you nowhere except reelected because you showed you were concerned.
I have had it with care and concern and responsible. If you have a car that is more efficient while meeting people’s needs it will sell. If you have a better way to make the electronics that make the car more efficient, but won’t be a trash problem, then show us. If you have a way to recycle those electronics that is efficient, then by all means speak up.
Otherwise, you are just pontificating. You are reinforcing your own illusion that you are better than others. You are trying to take power and choice away from the market place. You are trying to destroy the best thing in the history of the planet – capitalism. Everywhere they have tossed out capitalism, they have created an ecological disaster.
When the environmentalists all start clamoring for consumption taxes over income taxes in order to more justly distribute the inherent costs of pollution and environmental damage, THEN I will accept that they are not anti-capitalism. Until then, they are just the latest flavor of totalitarian nonsense.
Landcrusher for President.
NICKNICK: Totally agree. Personally, I’d like a cloth-interiored BMW e30 (An ’89-91 325iS or 325iX with (Manually adjustable) Sport Seats). I don’t want to pay for Sat-Nav, or even climate control.
Timoted,
Please correct me if I’ve missed the boat, but in your first comment, you (rightly) draw attention to the fact that electrical components are not completely without penalty. The penalty being their potential damage to the environment when discarded. I think that this is a valid point, albeit a bit tangent to the original article. You go on, after being asked what the alternatives might be, to suggest such electronics-rich vehicles as hybrids, fuel-cell cars and Tesla Motor’s plug-in electric. Now, what cars have more potentially environmentally-damaging electrical components, a Prius, a Tesla Roadster, or a Corolla?
So, is the problem conventional cars, or is it a mis-informed public who (wrongly) throw these things into their garbage cans? Perhaps education and far-reaching recycling programs are the key? It seems that these things will become even more important as hybrids become more prevalent and they begin to reach the end of their useful life. Have you ever tried to throw things away in a land-fill in Sweden? You can’t. You have to recycle them.
If you are advocating hybrids, fuel-cells and plug-ins, it seems your beef is not with electrical components, but in their disposal.
Landcrusher : Well said!
Don’t forget our friends in Japan. with the first rust spot they fail the safety test and get exported to a third world asian country. No old cars in Japan. Problem solved. Head firmly planted in the sand.
The Sha-Kin in Japan is tough, but not just rust spots. Mechanicals are the focus.
Where do you think old rusty cars end up? In large ships bound for China where they are smelted down and recycled. Not as much as you claim gets buried, there is a market for everything somewhere.
Landcrusher – Well said!
It is telling that one of the most recognized leaders in the environmental movement, Al Gore, got publicly embarrassed by the huge home(s) he powers and the limos and jets he uses. All the while telling us that the polar caps are melting and NY and Fla will be underwater. “Do as I say…” rules the day I guess.
You would think that a consumption tax would be the rallying cry for all environmentalists. But that would mean they would have to cut back as well. Can’t have that.
To Landcrusher and his potential Presidential voters – I must take issue with your post.
First of all, by declaring “environmentalism is…” or “environmentalists are…” is classic ‘straw-man’ arguing. I don’t think you can speak for a movement or a large group of people any more than I can. I consider myself an environmentalist and I favor consumption taxes.
Second, your assertion that capitalism is the best thing in the history of the planet shows a selective view of history and current events. You might think differently if you lived in Russia or China or Singapore (all places bristling with ‘capitalism’), or read books like ‘The Jungle’ or ‘Fast Food Nation’.
The simple fact is that capitalism has never been tried on this planet. We have always treated the planet like an infinite source for resources and an infinite dump for our garbage, when it is neither. Economic actors have always tried to socialize their costs while privatizing their profits. And it has almost always been government that has had to reign capitalism in from its worst excesses (especially abuses of labor, environment and democratic institutions).
To link this rant to the topic of the article, it was largely government mandates that forced automakers to turn, kicking and screaming, to electronic solutions for meeting pollution and safety requirements.
The market wouldn’t provide those solutions, because few car buyers will select ‘Not give neighbor’s kid asthma’ and ‘reduce ocean acidification’ on the option sheet and pay extra money for them. These are things we have to agree to do collectively outside the provenance of the market.
In fact, when we do collectively (through the actions of our government) insist that cars be safe, clean and fuel-efficient then the playing field is leveled. No automaker gets to sell its cars more cheaply by making them unsafe, dirty and gas-guzzling. Instead, innovation is sparked as they compete to meet those common requirements as efficiently as possible.
Landcrusher – what you are saying is that giving in to our immediate self interest is the best way to ensure our collective well being and that the idea of government intervention to act for our collective interest is socialism? The problem is that every snowflake in an avalanche denies guilt and that every yeast happily feast on carbohydrates until they poison themselves in their own alcohol waste. Individual wants will always be traded against the collective interest – that’s why we have drug and fraud laws.
What I am hearing from too many people just sounds like justification for continuing environmental damage thinly disguised by libertarian values.
I should also point out that when cars are recycled they re-use the components and they do not end up in a landfill – most German cars are designed to be recycled. Europeans also use a third less energy per capita than Americans and yet they seem to have a very good standard of living – I lived there for quite a few years and didn’t feel deprived of anything.
The notions that ‘everyone is just as bad as we are’ and that there are no alternatives to choose from is a fallacy, short sighted and also very out of character with the American way. Whatever happened to the ‘Can do’ attitude and innovation to solve problems?
Well you work on the fringes of the industry as I do and it’s kinda funny everyone’s take on technology. Automakers HATE to be dragged into installing new technology, because if it’s buggy (as new consumer tech is, what, 30% of the time?) there goes the JD Power rankings!
Everyone talks incessantly about how there needs to be a “black box” approach for easy upgrades later, but no one does anything. Far from it, the Tier Ones and automakers seem intent on so closely designing in everything that you can’t swap in a new stereo without ending up calling a tow truck.
Rumor has it that a certain tech company had to fly a bunch of media execs out to Germany, so that the media execs would promise not to sue DaimlerChrysler if they put a hard drive in their car stereos (hence, MyGig).
As for why they insist on selling $300 worth of consumer electronics as a $4000 option package, I don’t know — not sure if that’s all about market segmentation or throwing a bone to car salesmen … but I’ll get it back on the rebates anyway.
And how much extra does it cost GM to get someone to supply car stereos WITHOUT CD Drives for that ultra-cheap look?
Oh, and if you find yourself in a banquet room with a bunch of pontificating industry executives talking about high-falutin’ electronics, shout OPEN SOURCE! and watch the pandemonium break out.
Meanwhile, I just want a cheap car that has power windows.
Kevin wrote:”…the Tier Ones and automakers seem intent on so closely designing in everything that you can’t swap in a new stereo without ending up calling a tow truck.”
I have not seen that, but I did see an E90 (5-Series) BMW spend 5+ hours in the dealership repair shop because the customer wanted a CD changer installed. I took about 20 minutes to install it, then about 5 hours to reprogram all of the onboard computer modules to recognize the CD changer, transfer data to/from it and not freak out because it was there.
In contrast, installing a (BMW OEM) CD changer in the previous-generation E39 5-Series took about 10 minutes and it was immediately operational.
Eric,
It’s all about electronics and software now.
So, when is GM going to open their first R&D center in Silicon Valley?
Here in Silicon Valley I’ve never met anyone who works for GM. I do know people here who work for Toyota and Volkswagen.
Eric_S,
While I will not agree that it is a classic straw man, it is a generalization and a broad brush. However, it isn’t without merit. Your broad brush of capitalism is far worse than my bundling of environmentalists. (China?)
There are exceptions to every rule, but when we say environmentalist these days we generally exclude classical liberals and conservative conservationists. We have to have terms to have a discussion.
Furthermore, I am not a complete laissez-faire proponent. There is a place for regulation to avoid exactly the sort of things you (and carguy) mention. Since you mentioned libertarians, there is a whole school of libertarianism devoted to pollution problems. It’s all about your rights stopping when they step on mine. The smoking debate is a classic set of problems for these people and so are polluting cars.
The problem comes when those on the green side attempt to legislate or litigate. If you are pro consumption tax, then at least you are not hypocritical. Most of the environmentalists are though. How do they vote? What do the stand for?
Taking away the right to pollute frivolously is not the same as using “extraneous” costs as an excuse to run peoples lives. Mandating solutions is the biggest sin. Taking of property without adequate compensation is right up there as well. CAFE as written is just idiotic. No system is going to be perfect, and trying to limit people’s ability to use too much of any one resource is NOT a solution at all. It won’t work, and it will destroy the system we have. Sure tax gas, but don’t tell people they can’t own an SUV.
These days, it is my opinion, that they all to often stand for taking precipitous action which is anti market and anti private property whenever they see a dead squirrel. They are too short sighted to see that when they attack private property rights they attack their own right to make an attack at all. No government without decent private property rights has ever protected dissent with any vigor at all.
If one can make a reasonably good estimate of the extraneous costs of a behavior, and come up with a reasonably simple way to tax it, then I can support that. A fuel tax is a great example. A poor one is an upfront fee on circuit boards without a refund at the recycling center. Even worse is a class action tort suit that acheives nothing but enriching a few lawyers while taking away the assets needed for the offenders to fix the problem. And the real devil is the regulation that is so ridiculous that no one can understand it and needs to hire several professionals just to figure out if they are in compliance.
If you can think of something better than capitalism that man has come up with, then I would like to hear about it. Capitalism exists everywhere to some degree. Even the Star Trek guys couldn’t really get rid of it when they tried. It’s easier for them to break the laws of physics as we know it than to explain any society working without some sort of capitalism.
However, what I call a capitalist system depends on two things – private property rights and a reasonably fair/predictable justice system. It’s a sliding scale, but they ain’t got it in China or Russia. Singapore is a weird combination, but they seem to like it.
Carguy,
I am not saying what you say I am. As stated, immediate self interest is not the best decider. It’s no better than government decision making (though it’s hard to tell the difference any more).
Also, what good is it to make a car recyclable if it isn’t recycled? Would it be better to make a car that lasted 50 years, and then got 80% recycled, or better to make one that lasts 10 and is 95% recycled?
Your comment on european energy usage is classic. What matter is it how much energy some one uses? Energy is virtually unlimited. The universe is not so crowded that we should care. What we care about is pollutions effects on people and our environment. That is it. The rest is crap.
I am all about Can Do. Exactly what Can Do plan do the environmentalists have that will effectively improve our lives? I will be glad to consider them. Most of them seem to be of the “You stop doing what I don’t like and my life will be better” ilk. No thanks.
Lastly, don’t worry. I ain’t running for anything. Not even dog catcher.
ABS was developed by Bosch and Mercedes-Benz if anyone remembers M-B was the first manufacturer to offer ABS brakes on selected S Class cars in 1985 in North America.
Actually, the 1971-73 Imperial had an optional ABS system. They called it Sure-Brake. It was developed by Bendix.
Landcrusher – you need to be careful to state your definition of Capitalism up front, because yours is very different from common parlance.
Most people think of Capitalism as private ownership of economic entities and markets for exchange of goods/services. Your definition explicitly adds in concepts like Civil Society and Rule of Law.
By the common definition, countries like China, Russia, Singapore and Cameroon are capitalist. By your definition, they are not.
I would also remind you of the dictum that “politics is the art of the possible”. For example, I agree that CAFE is a clumsy way to reduce vehicular fuel use. But if it’s the only way we can produce that outcome and the outcome is better than doing nothing, sometimes we have to not let the great be the enemy of the adequate.
Actually, the 1971-73 Imperial had an optional ABS system. They called it Sure-Brake. It was developed by Bendix.
Interesting information thank you! HD trucks in the late 70’s were required to have ABS brakes under MVSS121 if my memory is correct. It was interesting to hear air brakes get into ABS mode, and most of the system were de activated.
kevin, open source certainly makes any and all manufacturers very nervous. The EU is applying a lot of pressure to make the diagnostics available to the aftermarket and independents.
Most German cars have a “continuous loop” when you want to lower a power window the signal from the window switch gores through the entire car.
Dealers pay manufacturers substantial monthly fees to operate and have updates for the diagnostic equipement. In many instances the equipement is leased to the dealer, the manufacturer owns the equipement, best way for manufacturers to control the distribution of the equipement.
Some European vehicles use a system called Osek http://www.osek-vdx.org/
Eric_S,
I am not sure I agree that the common definition would include all those countries, but it doesn’t really matter now that we understand each other better.
I believe China and Russia are called “mixed economies.”
My definition may be a little stronger on the rights stuff, but at a minimum you have to have some protection against the taking of your property and person from the others and the state. Otherwise, is your ownership of an economic entity real?
starlightmica :
December 11th, 2007 at 9:27 am
GM’s computer bus is the excuse I’ve heard as to why the Auribu/Maluria’s don’t have a navigation system, that it’s not possible to get the antenna/GPS chips to work with the system.
Why didn’t they use one of the newer, more sensitive GPS chipsets (i.e. SiRFStar III) which doesn’t require a roof-mounted antenna? Supposedly something about lead times for automotive electronics being 2-3 years.
If GM can retrofit (and, in this case, I do mean “retro”) a navigation system into the W-Body Grand Prix and G-Body Lucerne, they can do it to anything. Designing a new car on a four-year-old platform without a navigation system (I know it’s a depreciation nightmare and useless for most folks, but in the automotive biz “keeping up with the Fords” is very important) is nearly unforgiveable.
Sure lots of plastic and garbage get dumped in China; but they also until only recently have been doing anything to regulate the pollution spewing from their factories. As far as greenhouse gasses, the US my be a big producer, but eveyone, US, EU, China and the rest of the industrialized contries contribute.
Secondly, in alot of places now, you cant dispose of computers in regular garbage because of the circuit boards. Well what happens when your Idrive has to go to the recycler? Who knows.
Lastly hybrids are NOT the answer. where are they going to dump all the battery “juices” once the batteries are spent? that icky stuff is not only difficlt to recycle but expensive as well…like PCB’s were in the past and ended up being dumped in landfills by dishonest recyclers. I would rather drive a plain ULEV car that gets 34 miles to the gallon than a hybird which gets 40 with a superfund site in the back seat.