My father was always shocked that cars still ran on internal combustion engines. First patented in 1886 by Karl Benz, the automobile really hadn't changed that much in 100 years. Just like Benz's Fahrzeug mit Gasmotorenbetrieb, the coolest car in 1985 burned gas to move, rode on rubber and required that the driver exert force to stop. My dad would quickly contrast the history of the car with that of the airplane. Orville and Wilbur Wright made history on December 17, 1903 by flying a box covered in canvas three feet off the ground at 6.8 mph for 12 seconds. Compare that to December 22, 1964 when the SR-71 Blackbird debuted with a novel defensive maneuver; if the enemy fired a missile at you, speed up. My dad felt that cars should be rocket propelled, rocket braked and computer controlled so as to prevent accidents. Yet companies like Continental can't release new-tech brake-by-wire systems (which offer 15% shorter stopping distances) because consumers are afraid. And we're still sucking oil out of the ground and burning it. And riding on air-filled rubber tubes. My question to you is, where should we be?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Aviation advanced to such a degree because of governments, war, and unlimited nationalized funding. Cars run on gasoline because oil companies and governments are so intertwined, and the cost of developing new advancements heavily outweighs the need to make a profit from a private company. Governments can go into major debt forever, companies can’t.
The aviation analogy is a false one: Compare the cost of a SR-71 vs. a typical automobile. A more accurate comparison would be to a single engine Cessna, which has followed much flatter development curve, similar to the automobile.
This is a bit apples vs pomegranates.
Most private aircraft are ’40’s tech.
I think that the history of the airplane shows that every technology matures after a couple of generations. The SR-71 was designed in the late 1950s, but nothing (at least public) has taken its place. Boeing is still building and selling airplanes (737 and 747) designed in the 1960s, albeit with incremental improvements. Even their newer models (777 and 787) are variations on themes from that era.
I think that future automobiles will be evolutionary not revolutionary changes from what we currently drive. The biggest change I look for is computer controlled autopilots that would be mandatory for use on high-speed motorways. Most humans cannot responsibly control a fast car at 200 kmph (125 mph) in tight traffic. yet such speeds and traffic will be necessary to make the highway system function in another generation.
As for fuel. Do not worry. We can always use nuclear, solar or wind power to make gasoline from CO2 captured from the air and water.
Where should we be?
How about that damn flying car that Popular Science has been promising for the last fifty years or so?
Or how about those speeder bikes from Return of the Jedi. I’ve been waiting for one of those ever since the movie came out (1984)?
No.
Am I satisfied with the state of the art?
No. Absolutely not.
Ever seen Jeremy Clarkson’s Hot Metal? He takes this on pretty thoroughly.
Regarding Brake-by-Wire…
When hydraulic brakes were first implemented in cars, many drivers found it unsettling because they could not directly observe the mechanical action of the brake cables pulling the brake band against the wheel to slow the car down.
When disc brakes first came out, Enzo Ferrari thought of them as a gimmick and did not particularly like them much.
Once the technology proves itself, which I am hoping it eventually will, consumers will be much quicker to accept it.
Mercedes had SBC (Sensotronic Brake Control) on a few models and has quietly discontinued using the “electronic brakes”.
In an age where the average consumer is loath to spend money maintaining a vehicle, coming up with electric gizmos in brakes calipers to stop a vehicle is counter intuitive to what a consumer wants.
The avarage consumer is aware of the complexity of modern vehicles to the point that if the manuafcturers warranty runs out, the value of the vehicle plummets.
How much more advanced has the airplane gotten since the development of the SR-71?
Every technology has its plateau.
The aircraft industry is like comparing apples to oranges. Advances in aviation were/are driven predominately by the military and their gonernments. As far as the question of, “Where should we be?” I’ll sum it up in two words:
Mr. Fusion
# quasimondo :
February 19th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
How much more advanced has the airplane gotten since the development of the SR-71?
Every technology has its plateau.
Turbine engines are twice as efficient and twice as powerful with lower emissions for a given size as they were 50 years ago. That’s not bad.
Focusing on consumer aircraft and baring military and transport aircraft for obvious reasons, I’ve come up with some interesting notes.
If we call a Cessna comparable to a Ford, then Ford is significantly ahead of Cessna as far as construction of consumer vehicles, even including Ranger and Panthers. All of Cessna’s single engine piston planes (except those models recently acquired in its purchase of Columbia aircraft) are models that have seen few structural upgrades in decades. The Beechcraft Bonanza first flew in 1945 and though it has evolved over the years, it is still essentially the same aircraft it was then.
Introduced before World War 2, you can still buy a new Piper Cub (produced by different manufactures) today.
The “New” Piper aircraft company offers designs that mostly date back to the 50’s and 60’s using aluminum sheet metal design. They have one hot model, the Malibu (no relation), that was introduced in the 80’s and even offer a variant with a turbo-prop power plant. They are in the process of certifying a jet based of the Malibu
The Aeronca C-2 introduced in the late 20’s as the first true light aircraft uses a triangular steel-tube frame with wooden longerons covered in fabric to form the rear fuselage. The new American Champion Super Decathlon aerobatic aircraft along with the whole ACA line still use this same steel tube frame today. ACA offers a brand new Champ, not much different from the Cub-killer it was in 1946.
Maule Aircraft has been building fabric-covered aircraft since the 40’s and they have undergone only gradual changes.
One of the newer manufactures, Aviat of Afton, Wyoming, builds the Husky, a new plane based off the Piper Super Cub of yore.
Cirrus and Columbia (recently acquired by Cessna) offer state-of-the art composite aircraft with excellent speed and efficiency. They are game-changers. Still, all piston engines in production aircraft use magnetos rather than distributors. Magnetos began going out of fashion in automobiles before WW2. You can still buy new airplanes with carburators, though many have gone to fuel injection, though electronic fuel injection is just now coming into fashion with FADEC systems (full authority digital engine controls).
When Columbia, using a composite carbon-fiber airframe, claimed to have the fasted production piston aircraft, age-old Mooney put a more powerful engine into one of their existing models and got swiped the crown back. Their construction is aluminum sheet metal just like Cessna and Beech and their airplanes’ designs date back to the 40’s. They still use the same machine tools that they did in the 50’s.
The biggest revolution in consumer aviation is avionics and navigation systems. The technology that goes into the newest aircraft instrument panels is baffling. 60-year old designs often no longer offer standard round “steam” gauges and are guided by amazing full-screen systems offered by Garmin and Avidyne. Coupled with a proper auto-pilot and the pilot need only to takeoff and land and update the flightplan in the auto-pilot. The situational awareness is outstanding and the fun-factor is decreasing at an alarming rate.
Civilian consumer aircraft are generally far behind automobiles in technology because it is simply too expensive to come up with a new aircraft every few years. The Ford Panthers would be considered fairly new designs if they were aircraft. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” goes a long way in the sky. New manufactures come along every now and then and try to break the mold, but few are successful. Adam Aircraft of Denver had two game-changing models they were trying to produce, a piston twin and a light jet, both carbon fiber designs. The twin made it to certification, but the company folded last week without certifying the jet. Tesla, anyone?
The biggest change I look for is computer controlled autopilots that would be mandatory for use on high-speed motorways. Most humans cannot responsibly control a fast car at 200 kmph (125 mph) in tight traffic. yet such speeds and traffic will be necessary to make the highway system function in another generation.
Right, and when the system crashes the death toll from multi-car pile-ups will resemble the body count of a typical passenger airline disaster. But like airline disasters, it would probably happen a lot less often.
My biggest gripe is that there are no true small, inexpensive, high-mileage vehicles any more. No more small, high mileage pickups with 2.0L or less engines. Until the Smart fourtwo hit our shores there are no small cars can break the 40 MPG barrier unless they are hybrids. And calling “small” what they sell as small cars is something of a joke. For the most part they are a whole class size bigger than the 1985 Cavalier my wife had when we got married. They are almost as big as what used to pass for a mid-sized car back then as well. For example, a 1990 Chevy Celebrity is less than three inches wider than a 2008 Toyota Yaris and Hyundai Accent.
I did a paper about alternative transportation engines/fuels in college (admittedly, this was back when the Apple IIe was a state-of-the-art computer).
It’s just darn hard to find a technology that beats liquid hydrocarbons powering an Otto-cycle or Diesel-cycle when all factors (cost, emissions, fuel storage, powerband, etc.) are considered.
Also, consider that the “piston” engine dates back to about 1700 with Thomas Newcomen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_steam_power#The_Newcomen_Engine:_Steam_power_in_practice
Considered from that baseline, a BMW N54 (335i) engine is like an SR-71 to the Wright Flyer.
What disappoints me is that there is lots of great technology that’s scattered across makes/models that should be combined and put into every car.
EVERY car should have direct fuel injection
EVERY car should have infinitely-variable valve timing.
EVERY car should use electric-powered accessories (steering, water pump, A/C, etc.) to reduce parasitic losses.
EVERY car should be running Atkinson-cycle or Miller-cycle (which is Atkinson with supercharging).
EVERY car should have a hybrid powertrain. Honda’s IMA is disk about 2″ thick and the same dimensions as a clutch. By eliminating the alternator and starter motor, the net IMA weight is near zero. Yes, then you need a battery pack and controllers but those add up to about 100-150 lbs, which is the weight of one passenger.
EVERY car should be made out of as much aluminum, carbon fiber, high-strength steel, soy-based fabric, ad nausem as possible. Break the chicken-egg cost-volume dilemma by committing to volume production.
Of course, the problem is that while we TTACers want state-of-the-art vehicles, the average consumer just wants to drive around in a big flashy low-tech steel box.
In the late 1990s, Ford’s Wayne, MI plant making Navigators/Expeditions was the single most profitable factory in the world.
If gasoline was still $1.05/gallon, it would probably still be so.
Until consumers start explicitly paying the real costs of our petroleum addiction:
http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf
they will continue to want big low-tech boxes and automakers will continue to fill that want.
I have often been struck by how erratic progress is in any technological field. Development in passenger automobiles has been surprisingly non-linear. Sometimes changes have been driven by technology, new materials or new processes. Front wheel drive, to take one example, had been around since the 30’s but it was only with the advent of the constant velocity u-joint in the late 60s that fwd became a viable (read durable) alternative to rwd.
As a collector you notice it like this: I have a very nice 64 1/2 Mustang convertible. It was crudely engineered, even by 1964 standards, but still drives easily and keeps up with modern traffic, some 44 years later. Contrast that to, say a 1920 Model T, that would have been 44 years old in 1964. One would be hard pressed to find any automotive DNA in common between the two. But my Mustang and a 2008 are quite clearly related even though the technology has changed tremendously.
Timoted: The aircraft industry is like comparing apples to oranges. Advances in aviation were/are driven predominately by the military and their gonernments. As far as the question of, “Where should we be?” I’ll sum it up in two words:
Mr. Fusion
Unless someone makes cold fusion work, and I am not holding my breathe,this ain’t happening ever. If fusion is ever made to work commercially, it will be way too big for a car.
The biggest restriction on innovative automotive technology in the past 20 years has been the hyper focus on safety and a legal system in the world’s largest consumer auto market (that’s us, the USA) that puts the fear of God into automakers.
While it has admittedly resulted in some very good things, such as allowing people to walk away from crashes that would’ve easily killed or maimed a person only 30 years ago, it also contributed to the perception of driving as a right and not a privilege. So Joe and Jane Average jumps in the driver’s seat at age 16.5 without even the most basic understanding of car dynamics, mechanics, or even a firm grasp on basic physical laws (or the knowledge or expectation that they should understand these things), and our government expects the car makers to protect every single one of them. So cars get bigger, heavier, more complicated.
But it’s really not fair to compare cars to airplanes, as surface vehicles have limitations that aircraft do not. It would like comparing the development of boats to cars, or boat to airplanes, or airplanes to rockets and satellites. There is really very few things automotive that can compare with the SR71, the closest maybe the jet powered record breakers at the salt flats, and even those are orders of magnitude cheaper.
But I digress, even piston heads can grudgingly agree that safety improvements, while they do not increase dynamic performance, are a measure of progress. But where should the automotive be today technologically? Well, if one is to compare it to airplanes, the SR71 should definitely not be compared to the common Corolla. As noted earlier, a small Cessna is more in the ball park in terms of price (before legal insurance is factored in), and we can see that performance and technology improvements are not so different.
I think that given the political, social, legal, and economical, and practical limitations, the automobile is only slightly behind the times, technologically speaking. The first half of the 20th century has been mostly about improving performance, the second half mainly on efficiency and safety. I have a feeling the first half of the 21st century will be about environmental friendliness, with marginal improvements to performance and further, but still only evolutionary improvements to safety. But given the economic realities, the gas engine is going to be around for a good while.
How about a different take on the aircraft versus automobile comparison? If cars were built more like airplanes, they would be more expensive to buy, but their serviceable life would be much longer. Ideally, it would also be fairly easy to retrofit them with newer technology such as improved or alternative powerplants.
It’s probably more appropriate to compare cars to clothes-washing machines, both in their historical development and how most people (non-enthusiasts) view them.
Today’s car has a lifetime about 3 times as long as a car of the ’50s, is much more powerful and gets much better fuel mileage. The driving dynamics are usually far superior. If that’s not progress, I don’t know what is.
I love classic cars for their looks, but I have no particular interest in driving around in them.
I had recently come at this question from a different angle:
With the ever-increasing and gargantuan horsepower numbers available today, a natural question comes up: what next? How far can this go? How much more power is manageable?
I’m sure that 0-60 in 3.3 sec and 0-60 in 3.7 sec both feel like “holy mary mother of jeez louise” fast. A very concrete example is Mercedes-Benz’s S600 vs. S65 AMG. The acceleration times up to 100mph are somewhat similar, despite an extra 94hp and 126 lbs-ft of torque. There’s only so much quicker one can go.
Slowly, and recently, it started becoming clearer — what’s next, that is. New vehicles were coming out that are back to doing the 0-60 in 10+ sec, 1/4 in the 17’s+. These were / are the alternative propulsion, fuel-efficient vehicles: the hybrids, small-fours and threes (SmartCar), diesels and fuel-cell and hydrogen powered cars. (I specifically omit the E85 lie).
This is what will define “next” in the automotive world, as I see it.
The motive force will come from electric motors. The still-to-be-determined part is where the “juice” for these motors will come from:
– Fuel-cells
– The Grid (i.e. plugging them in)
– Hydrogen
– Solar (??)
– Micro-nuclear? (think Nuclear-Sub propulsion concept)
– A combination of the above
– A still-unforeseen energy source.
With this in mind, one realizes that today’s gas-electric hybrids are the natural precursors to this.
I think the cars of today are very good, and the manufacturers provide enough selection that you can buy whatever suits you. I have no problem with the cars; the people who drive them are another story.
15% shorter stopping distances? I normally don’t even acknowledge empty statistics like that. Give us some real data on the stopping tests!
Personally, I don’t think we should even be in cars anymore. We should jump into our “pods”, enter the coordinates of where we want to go and instantly appear there when we hit the “go” button.
But in the meantime, we will get in our cars, press the start button and drive to our destination. The cars will still use fossil fuels because getting away from fossil fuels will put about 2 Billion people around the world out of work.
I’d like to know if there’s a future in cars with a diesel electric (or gas electric) drive train – where the engine is an electric generator for high torque motors at the wheels. Or does Toyota have that planned for the 2018 Prius?
Or how about micro-turbines for generation/power? Can they be shrunk to fit into a 7 series? BMW used to make aircraft…
Actually, the car has come a very long way. Also, I think we will see a lot of upgrades in the next couple of decades. Technology tends to advance in fits and starts.
I also have to point out that limiting the scope of the offshoots of Benz’s invention to the personal car while following the Wright brothers’ descendents off on military and commercial carrier lines is, as has been pointed out, apples and oranges.
We can make a turbine powered semi with a winnebago like cab, it’s just not practical. As N85523 pointed out, private aviation has moved even slower than autos. Modern avionics and glass cockpits in small planes actually owe their existance to the ring gyro volumes created by anti-lock brakes and electronic stability. Before the auto makers brought the price of these gyro’s down to earth, only the military and carriers could afford the technology.
I am not happy with the state of the art, because one of the most advanced cars of recent years was discontinued. The market didn’t appreciate it and its maker gave up too quickly.
I am talking about the Audi A2. It had an aluminum body and was therefore lightweight, yet very rigid. It was tall and short and narrow, had great packaging and great aerodynamics. Its design was bauhausian — stern and reduced, which the public took as unmacho and unstylish.
In handling, space and ride comfort, it was similar to an A4 but got vastly superior fuel economy. I once took an A2 Diesel from Frankfurt to Hamburg and back in one day, equalling 1100km, at speeds between 100 and 115 miles per hour. I got a fuel economy of 39 MPG on that trip, but otherwise averaged over 50 MPG.
In reliability rankings, the A2 is near the top of most lists. Prices for used A2s are sky-high. If Audi had had the foresight to continue making it, they’d have a car to rival the Prius.
With 20 years of vehicle ownership under my belt (I started late, at the age of 24), I’m rather impressed by the advances in the state of the automotive art. Consider the contrast between my first vehicle and my current vehicle:
In March 1988, I purchased a brand new 1988.5 Suzuki Samurai. My Samurai had a curb weight of around 2000 pounds and, powered by its 1.3L carburetted engine (with a mighty 63 HP; I don’t recall its torque), it could reach 60 mph in somewhere around 14 seconds. My gas mileage was around 27 MPG. Safety equipment included a well-designed roll cage and three-point seat belts for the driver and front passenger (rear passengers had to make do with lap belts; fortunately, no one in his/her/its right mind would want to spend much time in a Samurai’s rear seat). My Samurai, with manual locking front hubs, a dual-range transfer case, and about 8″ ground clearance, was well-equipped for off-road driving (I once surprised a friend who owned a 4×4 full-size Dodge pickup by keeping up with him everywhere he went off-road). Cornering, though, required some prudence, lest one find oneself testing the above-mentioned roll cage.
Let’s fast-forward to now:
In December 2006, I purchased a brand new 2007 Suzuki SX4. Its 2.0L fuel-injected engine (a four-banger, like my old Samurai’s engine) is rated at 143 HP, and can accelerate my SX4 (with a curb weight of 2800 pounds) from 0-60 in around 9 seconds. With over double the horsepower of my old Samurai, my gas mileage is still around 27 MPG. Safety equipment includes three-point seat belts for all five passenger positions, along with six air bags (including side air bags and side curtain air bags) and antilock brakes. While I wouldn’t match my SX4 against my Samurai for off-road capability (as my SX4 has only 6.9″ ground clearance and lacks a dual-range transfer case), my SX4 has a pushbutton AWD system that can be used on dry pavement. As for cornering, Mr. Lieberman found the SX4’s corner carving quite competent.
Finally, just this weekend, I happened to visit the Fort Huachuca “Lemon Lot” (i.e., a place where owners can display their used vehicles for sale), where I saw a very nice 1984 El Camino. According to the owner, this El Camino sported a 5.0L V-8 engine, listed by the owner as 150 HP. So, 23 model years later, Suzuki produced a 2.0L four-cylinder engine that produced nearly the same horsepower (though with much less torque) as Chevy’s 5.0L V-8.
“Turbine engines are twice as efficient and twice as powerful with lower emissions for a given size as they were 50 years ago. That’s not bad.”
And 50 years before that they did not exist. ICE car engines have improved as well perhaps not that much, but quite a bit.
Me:The biggest change I look for is computer controlled autopilots
radimus: “Right, and when the system crashes the death toll from multi-car pile-ups will resemble the body count of a typical passenger airline disaster. But like airline disasters, it would probably happen a lot less often.”
On the gripping hand, We shouldn’t do it unless it is a safety improvement. Given the death toll of the current system, I think we might well be better off.
Radimus: “For example, a 1990 Chevy Celebrity is less than three inches wider than a 2008 Toyota Yaris and Hyundai Accent.”
I have often complained in this forum about the bloat of modern cars. I owned a 1986 Celebrity. It was fun to drive, but it started to rust the day I bought it. I did however, get 9 years out of it before I totaled it in a snowstorm. The accident wasn’t that bad, but the cash value of the car was so low that the insurance company said: “come to papa.”
Actually, turbine engines are still not as efficient as GM’s biggest pushrod.
One of the reasons we still use piston engines is that Benz actually got it right the first time.
David Holzman nailed it: Today’s car has a lifetime about 3 times as long as a car of the ’50s, is much more powerful and gets much better fuel mileage. The driving dynamics are usually far superior. If that’s not progress, I don’t know what is.
I love classic cars for their looks, but I have no particular interest in driving around in them.
And he didn’t even include emissions controls, where in some cases the exhaust coming out of the pipe is cleaner than the air originally sucked in through the grille.
One of the things that amazes me is that so many cars have much higher power to weight ratios than ever before (a 268 hp Accord!) and can accelerate faster than muscle cars of the 60’s – but highway speeds have not changed, and due to increased congestion are often lower. So now we have much safer cars with airbags, crash cages, seatbelts, disc brakes, BIG power, much better tires and suspension, and we still drive them at 55-65mph if we’re lucky. Heck, I used to do that in my 1962 Valiant.
Maybe with the change to $100/bbl oil some sanity will occur and folks will go back to realizing that a vehicle that make 0-60 in 9 seconds is really all that is needed except for the 1% of driver who actually use their cars at the track. I’ve been as guilty as the next guy with my WRX wagon (I did more miles and got better mileage with my 1976 Datsun 610 wagon) and never NEEDED more power. It’s fun to have, but needed – maybe not if I’m confident of my own endowments..
No, way too much crappy electronics. Also , I wonder if all the airbags are necessary. My E-28 has none, and that model has proved to be quite crashworthy due to the well engineered crumple zones.
Luddites*, a 20+ year deficit of engineering students, and self-proclaimed environmentalists who object to anything that might harm the smallest flesh-eating bacteria.
I am appalled at the state of the art.
*In the original sense of the word http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
Jonny:
My father was always shocked that cars still ran on internal combustion engines. First patented in 1886 by Karl Benz, the automobile really hadn’t changed that much in 100 years.
But you seem to like the Honda FCX, powered by the kind of fuel cell Christian Friedrich Schönbein built in 1838?
Yes, I am very happy with the state of the art.
There are people that view cars as appliances, and people that view them as toys.
The people that view cars as appliances want them to be cheap and reliable, not state of the art (unless that means back seat DVD players).
The people that view cars as toys don’t want robots to take over the driving or shifting for them.
Cars are relatively low tech. Making them good has a lot more to do with development and design than the latest technology.
Or do you not like the Lotus/Caterham 7?
Carbon Fiber is over rated plastic, and I predict a number of asbestos like carbon fiber worker lawsuits in the coming years (small fibers that do not dissolve are bad news).
Effective storage of electric energy will be a huge leap forward, but until then I don’t think much is going to impress me.
If anything comparing current cars to the SR-71 shows how little the automotive industry has to do with the current defense industry.
Detroit-Iron :
If it wasn’t for environmentalists cars would still be running carburetors with points distributors and 3-speed automatics.
If it was not for environmental and safety regulations there would have been no technological advances in passenger cars since the 1970s, except for maybe fancier radios.