Archive for the ‘Vehicle Technology’ Category

Consumer electronics aren’t designed to last more than a few years. After all, advances in technology render computers and phones obsolete long before many of them have a chance to fail. Many people expect their cars to last at least a dozen years. If the car is a desirable one, enthusiasts would like to keep it going…forever. But will this be possible with the latest cars, with their thorough integration of complicated electronics?

(more…)

Back in the 1980s GM, Ford, and Chrysler transitioned nearly all of their rear-wheel-drive cars to front-wheel-drive. The primary reason: front-wheel-drive cars inherently weigh a little less because there’s no need for a driveshaft running about half the length of the car, and reducing weight helps fuel economy. Other reasons included the superior space efficiency of front-wheel-drive cars, since the transmission and drivetrain don’t intrude into the passenger compartment, and safer handling on slippery roads.

These were major advantages in the 1980s. But do they remain true today?

Weight: here front-wheel-drive cars maintain an advantage, as there’s no gettiing around the extra weight of the driveshaft.

Space efficiency: here the disadvantage of rear-wheel-drive isn’t nearly what it was. Domestic cars traditionally had non-independent “live” rear suspensions. If both wheels hit a bump at the same time, the entire axle and driveshaft moved upwards with the wheels. So the floorpan of the car had to bulge upward quite a bit over these components to provide sufficient clearance. Result: a huge “hump” and greatly reduced cargo volume.

Modern rear-wheel-drive cars, on the other hand, have independent rear-suspensions. With these, the driveshaft and differential do not move when a wheel hits a bump, so the floorpan can fit much more tightly around them.

The transmission still extends rearward into the passenger area, but this is only a major factor for cars with bench front seats. These are very rare in recent years. Instead, even front-wheel-drive cars have large center consoles, sacrificing much of their additional space efficiency in the name of styling.

Winter driving: here as well the advantage of front-wheel-drive isn’t nearly what it was back in the 1980s. First off, modern suspensions, more precise steering systems, more balanced weight distributions, and today’s all-season tires all add up to far better handling than that of traditional domestic cars. Beyond that, you can buy excellent winter tires these days–I recommend them for any car that will frequently be driven in the snow–even those with all-wheel-drive. Finally, more and more cars have stability control as standard equipment. This electronic system selectively modulates the brakes to keep the car from fishtailing or otherwise deviating from your intended course.

How well does it work? This winter in Detroit I personally drove a Lexus GS 400, a powerful rear-wheel-drive car. It’s a 2000, so its stability control system is not as advanced as that on a new car. Even so, I experienced no trouble driving the car on snowy roads. Better than that, with rear-wheel-drive it’s possible to have a little fun in turns by giving the car just a bit more gas than is wise. Well, I had fun. My wife in the passenger seat, not so much.

Morale of the story: many of the advantages of front-wheel-drive are now history. But when will public perceptions catch up?

First popular in Japan, navigation systems that are built into the vehicle have become a must-have option in the U.S. as well. Very common in luxury cars, they’re increasingly common in mainstream models. But do they even make sense?

The advantages of built-in navigation systems are clear: you get a larger screen, a cleaner installation, and less risk of theft.

The disadvantages aren’t as clear, but could easily outweigh the disadvantages. First off, built-in navigation systems are expensive, costing at least $900 and sometimes over $2,000. These days, you can get a cheap portable navigation system for $100 and a top-line portable system for $400 (which is what I recently paid for a Garmin Nuvi 680).

Second, it’s easier and cheaper to update the maps and firmware of the portable navigation systems; just hook them up to a computer, and the updates are often free. To update the maps for a built-in navigation system, you must buy CDs for $200 or so or, with newer systems, get an update from the dealer. Which won’t be cheap. For firmware, it’s going to be the dealer. If there’s any firmware update at all.

At worst, with a portable navigation system you can simply buy a new unit–perhaps for about the same cost as the maps for a built-in system. I’ve never heard of anyone replacing a built-in navigation system with a newer one. Even if this was possible, the cost would be in the thousands.

Finally, portable units use newer technology. In-car navigation systems are subject to lengthy vehicle product development cycles. So even when they’re “new” the technology can be old. Portable units are heavily revised a number of times a year, with much less lag from the lab to the store shelves.

Already, many people realize that portable navigation systems simply make more sense. If this number becomes significant, vehicle manufacturers might have to make some changes to make the built-in navigation systems more competitive.

What could they do? Three things come to mind. They could find ways to get the newest technology into new vehicles sooner. And they could make it easier and cheaper to upgrade the hardware and software of the built-in navigation systems.

Finally, they’ll probably have to reduce the price of these build-in navigation systems. Auto makers aren’t used to producing a product where the price falls dramatically over time. But this is typical of high-tech industries. With portable navigation systems, it has only recently become possible to buy a high-end system for $400 or so. The cost was over a thousand not long ago.

The prices of built-in navigation systems have not declined to nearly the same extent, and in many cases haven’t declined at all. This even though the manufacturing cost has no doubt come way down. A pricing adjustment is needed, and my suspicion is that one is coming.

Back in the Golden Age of Detroit, owners of imported sports cars viewed the drivers of big block domestic ”muscle cars” as unintelligent unsophisticated knuckledraggers. After all, true connoisseurs of the automobile knew that the real joys were in skillfully working the pedals, shifter, and steering, not in being able to deprive one’s frontal lobe of oxygen through the simple act of putting one’s right foot to the floor. Even as recently as a decade ago the smaller, higher-winding engines in imported cars were viewed as a more intelligent approach than Detroit’s reliance on cubic inches. Why did GM need a 3.8-liter V6, when the Japanese did well with 3.0s?

And yet, today, I cannot visit any forum, foreign or domestic, without reading that this car or that one has no low-end torque, and that this is a dealkiller. I’m reading this today over at BimmerForums.com about the Porsche Cayman S, a car whose 3.4-liter flat six musters up “only” 251 foot-pounds of torque at 4,400 rpm.

(more…)

The 2008 models are starting to arrive. I’ve driven two so far–the Dodge Avenger and the Ford Escape–and just uploaded pricing for these and five other early 2008s. The big news is that infotainment systems are gaining many new features. Satellite radio is a few years old now. OnStar is even older. Navigation and Bluetooth are now available in cars the list for less than $25,000. They’re being joined by HD radio, thorough iPod integration, SYNC, traffic information systems, hard-disc-drive-based media and navigation data storage, multi-screen multi-player entertainment systems, and more.

I hadn’t given much thought to the implications of all these new features until a discussion with Brendan of Autosavant.net the other day. Brendan is an expert on leases. I was wondering if leasing companies apply a different residual to expensive options that are likely to depreciate heavily. He says they only do this sometimes, but it seems that they probably should every time.

(more…)

Earlier today I posted a blog entry suggesting that GM made a mistake showing the Volt. And now I’ve come across an instance where GM showed a promising concept three years ago, but has let someone else be the first to actually offer such a product.

(more…)

It’s becoming clear that the biggest news at this years Detroit auto show was GM’s introduction of the Chevrolet Volt. I didn’t pay much attention to it myself, figuring that no matter how you look at it this introduction was a mistake. An article by Sharon Terlep in yesterday’s Detroit News suggests that at least some people inside GM thought the same thing.

(more…)

Automobile Magazine recently recognized stability control as its ”technology of the year.” As much as I value this feature, the award confuses me, as stability control has been widely available for a few years. I’d have given the award to direct injection instead.

(more…)