Autos used for a century. Hows the progress?
- Thread starter ledslinger
- Start date
- Status
The internal combustion engine is anything but archaic. Sure the original principle is still used, but a late model engine can hardly be compared to that of the early engines I say this with the thought of materials, electronics, controls... and power output.
Originally Posted By: rclint
The internal combustion engine is anything but archaic. Sure the original principle is still used, but a late model engine can hardly be compared to that of the early engines I say this with the thought of materials, electronics, controls... and power output.
I'm talking about the concept - 100 years ago or now it's the same exact concept: has 30% or so efficiency, functions by small explosions inside it and the output is unpleasant stuff.
The internal combustion engine is anything but archaic. Sure the original principle is still used, but a late model engine can hardly be compared to that of the early engines I say this with the thought of materials, electronics, controls... and power output.
I'm talking about the concept - 100 years ago or now it's the same exact concept: has 30% or so efficiency, functions by small explosions inside it and the output is unpleasant stuff.
I would say cars have made a ton of progress, but not in every aspect. Speed and fuel economy, on average, are not significantly better than they have been. However, cars on average last longer, are much more reliable, and are far safer than what they used to be. Comfort has also improved a great deal.
A truck buyer from 30+ years ago would not be blown away by the fuel economy of my truck or the power. At around 20 MPG with only 154 HP it isn't very impressive. However, they might be impressed that in 8 years it has started every time it has been cranked, it has never broken down, it runs great regardless of the weather or climate, it is comfortable enough for very long drives (have gone on 14+ hour trips to VT and NH), at 94K miles it still basically runs and drives like it did when it was new, and there's not a spot of rust on it.
A truck buyer from 30+ years ago would not be blown away by the fuel economy of my truck or the power. At around 20 MPG with only 154 HP it isn't very impressive. However, they might be impressed that in 8 years it has started every time it has been cranked, it has never broken down, it runs great regardless of the weather or climate, it is comfortable enough for very long drives (have gone on 14+ hour trips to VT and NH), at 94K miles it still basically runs and drives like it did when it was new, and there's not a spot of rust on it.
Kestas
Staff member
I believe they've progressed up until 20 years ago. Now we're in a diminishing returns situation, where the powertrain "advancements" we've seen lately are making cars more difficult and expensive to repair... all in the name of better fuel mileage. What's the point in saving a few gallons of gasoline if the features cost us hundreds of dollars more to repair than in years past?
Originally Posted By: rclint
The internal combustion engine is anything but archaic. Sure the original principle is still used, but a late model engine can hardly be compared to that of the early engines I say this with the thought of materials, electronics, controls... and power output.
That's been my point all along.
They had DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, and pentroof combustion chambers back in the 1920s. Direct Injection (diesels) are nothing new.
Now they've got better materials and electrics.
doesn't make where we are now revolutionary.
The internal combustion engine is anything but archaic. Sure the original principle is still used, but a late model engine can hardly be compared to that of the early engines I say this with the thought of materials, electronics, controls... and power output.
That's been my point all along.
They had DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, and pentroof combustion chambers back in the 1920s. Direct Injection (diesels) are nothing new.
Now they've got better materials and electrics.
doesn't make where we are now revolutionary.
Originally Posted By: ahoier
But other than that, not much new "developments"
If you look at it this way, car isn't much of a development because it was just a horse drawn carriage replacing the horse with a combustion engine.
Most of today's cars can be considered super car in the old days for the power, torque, fuel economy, comfort, and handling, for a much lower price after factoring in inflation.
But other than that, not much new "developments"
If you look at it this way, car isn't much of a development because it was just a horse drawn carriage replacing the horse with a combustion engine.
Most of today's cars can be considered super car in the old days for the power, torque, fuel economy, comfort, and handling, for a much lower price after factoring in inflation.
Originally Posted By: Kestas
I believe they've progressed up until 20 years ago. Now we're in a diminishing returns situation, where the powertrain "advancements" we've seen lately are making cars more difficult and expensive to repair... all in the name of better fuel mileage. What's the point in saving a few gallons of gasoline if the features cost us hundreds of dollars more to repair than in years past?
IIRC, I read that a Model T got 20mpg and now the average fleet mpg is about that.
What good is better efficiency if you're just going to keep weighing it down?
I think the 80s was the tops. They had technological breakthroughs, had some good style and were at the top of the mpg game. All the while being simple to work on.
FI is not all that much better than Carb. My 85 required a little choke in the morning as did my 05 bike. But both ran fine and weren't a problem efficiency wise. FI doesn smell as good either. Every time a LEO roars by its gets all stinky from the cats. So what if the air is cleaner if its smells bad instead of good. j/k
I believe they've progressed up until 20 years ago. Now we're in a diminishing returns situation, where the powertrain "advancements" we've seen lately are making cars more difficult and expensive to repair... all in the name of better fuel mileage. What's the point in saving a few gallons of gasoline if the features cost us hundreds of dollars more to repair than in years past?
IIRC, I read that a Model T got 20mpg and now the average fleet mpg is about that.
What good is better efficiency if you're just going to keep weighing it down?
I think the 80s was the tops. They had technological breakthroughs, had some good style and were at the top of the mpg game. All the while being simple to work on.
FI is not all that much better than Carb. My 85 required a little choke in the morning as did my 05 bike. But both ran fine and weren't a problem efficiency wise. FI doesn smell as good either. Every time a LEO roars by its gets all stinky from the cats. So what if the air is cleaner if its smells bad instead of good. j/k
The Model T may have gotten 20 MPG but it only made 15 horsepower. Today's engines are hugely more efficient. Brake mean effective pressure is a good indicator of the efficiency of an engine (BMEP is the average pressure in the cylinder over 1 cycle. While a Model T would be lucky to get 60 psi BMEP, a modern engine may get upward of 180 psi or more. The 'power density' (power per cubic inch) is much higher on modern engines.
I really wouldn't call the computer controlled carburetor of the 80's a significant breakthrough as most of their electronics are poorly implemented band aids.
I really wouldn't call the computer controlled carburetor of the 80's a significant breakthrough as most of their electronics are poorly implemented band aids.
Originally Posted By: Scott_Tucker
The Model T may have gotten 20 MPG but it only made 15 horsepower. Today's engines are hugely more efficient. Brake mean effective pressure is a good indicator of the efficiency of an engine (BMEP is the average pressure in the cylinder over 1 cycle. While a Model T would be lucky to get 60 psi BMEP, a modern engine may get upward of 180 psi or more. The 'power density' (power per cubic inch) is much higher on modern engines.
I really wouldn't call the computer controlled carburetor of the 80's a significant breakthrough as most of their electronics are poorly implemented band aids.
Yes, but... One other thing that perplexes me is that despite the obvious need to transition to more efficient vehicles, the automakers are still, with a few notable exceptions, advancing their engine designs in the direction of increasing power and torque. So today, you can buy a V-6 Camry, Fusion, Accord, or Malibu that can blow the doors clean off of an early 80s V-8 Z28 Camaro. The sedan V-6s of that era generally made less than 1/2 of what similar size engines make today. For some reason, I recall the 2.8L V-8 Chevy Celebrity having 125 hp (way less than today's I-4s).
Anyway, I wonder where we'd be today if, instead of relentlessly working to increase hp/tq (and decreasing 0-60 times), the car makers had instead focused upon driving up fuel economy numbers. Or maybe they could even have compromised a little and gone for some fuel more economy while increasing performance too. Heck, sometimes my hybrid Camry feels too fast for its own good (it's good for 187 total hp, about the same as a previous generation V-6 Camry on regular gas).
Apparently, the car makers think that all we care about is being able to win stoplight drag races. . .
The Model T may have gotten 20 MPG but it only made 15 horsepower. Today's engines are hugely more efficient. Brake mean effective pressure is a good indicator of the efficiency of an engine (BMEP is the average pressure in the cylinder over 1 cycle. While a Model T would be lucky to get 60 psi BMEP, a modern engine may get upward of 180 psi or more. The 'power density' (power per cubic inch) is much higher on modern engines.
I really wouldn't call the computer controlled carburetor of the 80's a significant breakthrough as most of their electronics are poorly implemented band aids.
Yes, but... One other thing that perplexes me is that despite the obvious need to transition to more efficient vehicles, the automakers are still, with a few notable exceptions, advancing their engine designs in the direction of increasing power and torque. So today, you can buy a V-6 Camry, Fusion, Accord, or Malibu that can blow the doors clean off of an early 80s V-8 Z28 Camaro. The sedan V-6s of that era generally made less than 1/2 of what similar size engines make today. For some reason, I recall the 2.8L V-8 Chevy Celebrity having 125 hp (way less than today's I-4s).
Anyway, I wonder where we'd be today if, instead of relentlessly working to increase hp/tq (and decreasing 0-60 times), the car makers had instead focused upon driving up fuel economy numbers. Or maybe they could even have compromised a little and gone for some fuel more economy while increasing performance too. Heck, sometimes my hybrid Camry feels too fast for its own good (it's good for 187 total hp, about the same as a previous generation V-6 Camry on regular gas).
Apparently, the car makers think that all we care about is being able to win stoplight drag races. . .
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Scott_Tucker
The Model T may have gotten 20 MPG but it only made 15 horsepower. Today's engines are hugely more efficient. Brake mean effective pressure is a good indicator of the efficiency of an engine (BMEP is the average pressure in the cylinder over 1 cycle. While a Model T would be lucky to get 60 psi BMEP, a modern engine may get upward of 180 psi or more. The 'power density' (power per cubic inch) is much higher on modern engines.
I really wouldn't call the computer controlled carburetor of the 80's a significant breakthrough as most of their electronics are poorly implemented band aids.
I think he was making reference to things like TPI and Ford's SEFI, not TBI.
The Model T may have gotten 20 MPG but it only made 15 horsepower. Today's engines are hugely more efficient. Brake mean effective pressure is a good indicator of the efficiency of an engine (BMEP is the average pressure in the cylinder over 1 cycle. While a Model T would be lucky to get 60 psi BMEP, a modern engine may get upward of 180 psi or more. The 'power density' (power per cubic inch) is much higher on modern engines.
I really wouldn't call the computer controlled carburetor of the 80's a significant breakthrough as most of their electronics are poorly implemented band aids.
I think he was making reference to things like TPI and Ford's SEFI, not TBI.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
1948 Holden carried 5 at the legal speed limit (then and now), and got about 30MPG Oz.
2010 Commodore/Falcon carries 5 at the legal speed limit, and gets a bit better, but not much.
I'll get leaped on about safety, airbags, sophistication etc.
But the basic running gear is evolution from 90-100 year old designs, but using more modern materials, manufacturing techniques, and electronics.
No leap-on regarding the safety stuff. That has advanced, as it should have. Otherwise, the basic designs are fundamentally old school. But I don't think you could get a six-disc CD changer in a 48 Holden...
On a more serious note, the development of cars, unlike that of aircraft, was fundamentally limited by human capability. In the very early days, aircraft did not travel much faster than cars did. My dad tells an amusing story of flying across Texas in a DC-3, and because of headwinds, seeing cars on the highway traveling as fast as they were. Anyway, depending upon conditions, the average driver is incapable of driving safely as you approach triple-digit speeds (some become unsafe much earlier).
We've made many improvements to our cars (and roads) over the last 100 years, but sadly, we are unable to improve ourselves.
1948 Holden carried 5 at the legal speed limit (then and now), and got about 30MPG Oz.
2010 Commodore/Falcon carries 5 at the legal speed limit, and gets a bit better, but not much.
I'll get leaped on about safety, airbags, sophistication etc.
But the basic running gear is evolution from 90-100 year old designs, but using more modern materials, manufacturing techniques, and electronics.
No leap-on regarding the safety stuff. That has advanced, as it should have. Otherwise, the basic designs are fundamentally old school. But I don't think you could get a six-disc CD changer in a 48 Holden...
On a more serious note, the development of cars, unlike that of aircraft, was fundamentally limited by human capability. In the very early days, aircraft did not travel much faster than cars did. My dad tells an amusing story of flying across Texas in a DC-3, and because of headwinds, seeing cars on the highway traveling as fast as they were. Anyway, depending upon conditions, the average driver is incapable of driving safely as you approach triple-digit speeds (some become unsafe much earlier).
We've made many improvements to our cars (and roads) over the last 100 years, but sadly, we are unable to improve ourselves.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Yes, but... One other thing that perplexes me is that despite the obvious need to transition to more efficient vehicles, the automakers are still, with a few notable exceptions, advancing their engine designs in the direction of increasing power and torque.
And this in an era where many roads are so congested that you can't even take advantage of all this extra power. And the roads which are not congested have speed limits which have not increased in decades.
Alas, I think we, the public, are partially to blame. We get excited about torque/HP figures and that's what still drives sales, as exemplified by numerous car ads. Our mentality needs to change before car makers move away from this HP race. Gas prices aren't high enough yet for this to take place, but it'll eventually happen.
Yes, but... One other thing that perplexes me is that despite the obvious need to transition to more efficient vehicles, the automakers are still, with a few notable exceptions, advancing their engine designs in the direction of increasing power and torque.
And this in an era where many roads are so congested that you can't even take advantage of all this extra power. And the roads which are not congested have speed limits which have not increased in decades.
Alas, I think we, the public, are partially to blame. We get excited about torque/HP figures and that's what still drives sales, as exemplified by numerous car ads. Our mentality needs to change before car makers move away from this HP race. Gas prices aren't high enough yet for this to take place, but it'll eventually happen.
Yeah I agree, a nearly ~300HP 3.5L 4V V6 in Malibus, Accord etc is overkill. 2.5-3L is more sensible and balanced. Cars are getting too big, heavy, complicated and expensive for the market. With the price they're going at they could be lighter and made with more aluminum alloys and composites. The model T and cars even up through the 80's also did something the latest models don't. Affordable to buy and repair.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
And this in an era where many roads are so congested that you can't even take advantage of all this extra power. And the roads which are not congested have speed limits which have not increased in decades.
My state, the trend is to decreasing speed limits.
Roads that have been 100km/h for decades are getting dropped to 80 and 90 as traffic intensifies.
And this in an era where many roads are so congested that you can't even take advantage of all this extra power. And the roads which are not congested have speed limits which have not increased in decades.
My state, the trend is to decreasing speed limits.
Roads that have been 100km/h for decades are getting dropped to 80 and 90 as traffic intensifies.
Originally Posted By: rclint
The internal combustion engine is anything but archaic. Sure the original principle is still used, but a late model engine can hardly be compared to that of the early engines I say this with the thought of materials, electronics, controls... and power output.
Lipstick on a pig. It's still "suck, squeeze, boom, puff."
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
I think the 80s was the tops.
Yeah, lets bring back some of those great 80's cars
We should have electric cars powered by fuel cells by now. The industry spends far too much effort on sex appeal.
The internal combustion engine is anything but archaic. Sure the original principle is still used, but a late model engine can hardly be compared to that of the early engines I say this with the thought of materials, electronics, controls... and power output.
Lipstick on a pig. It's still "suck, squeeze, boom, puff."
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
I think the 80s was the tops.
Yeah, lets bring back some of those great 80's cars
We should have electric cars powered by fuel cells by now. The industry spends far too much effort on sex appeal.
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Originally Posted By: rclint
The internal combustion engine is anything but archaic. Sure the original principle is still used, but a late model engine can hardly be compared to that of the early engines I say this with the thought of materials, electronics, controls... and power output.
Lipstick on a pig. It's still "suck, squeeze, boom, puff."
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
I think the 80s was the tops.
Yeah, lets bring back some of those great 80's cars
We should have electric cars powered by fuel cells by now. The industry spends far too much effort on sex appeal.
Right, in the eighties weight went down and SOME cars were alot of fun, easy to work on, reasonably priced and fuel efficient.
Of course, though, there were some I'd rather not remember.
But then again I was born in that decade and don't remember 'what it was like'
Originally Posted By: rclint
The internal combustion engine is anything but archaic. Sure the original principle is still used, but a late model engine can hardly be compared to that of the early engines I say this with the thought of materials, electronics, controls... and power output.
Lipstick on a pig. It's still "suck, squeeze, boom, puff."
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
I think the 80s was the tops.
Yeah, lets bring back some of those great 80's cars
We should have electric cars powered by fuel cells by now. The industry spends far too much effort on sex appeal.
Right, in the eighties weight went down and SOME cars were alot of fun, easy to work on, reasonably priced and fuel efficient.
Of course, though, there were some I'd rather not remember.
But then again I was born in that decade and don't remember 'what it was like'
Cars made in the 1950s needed an engine rebuilt at least every 100k miles, and probably sooner than that. Now engines come with a 100k-mile warranty because nearly all are expected to be trouble-free at least that long.
I expect 500k miles from my engine and hope for 750k and more. Such longevity in an economy car was unheard of 50 years ago.
Roads are better. You could not travel coast-to-coast in three days until the 1960s or maybe later, at least not reliably.
Fuel is better, lubricants are better, tires are better, metal alloys are better, electric components are better (mostly), fuel mileage is better. (The small car that got 35-40 mpg forty years ago gets the same mileage but is 1000 pounds heavier and much safer to drive.)
I expect 500k miles from my engine and hope for 750k and more. Such longevity in an economy car was unheard of 50 years ago.
Roads are better. You could not travel coast-to-coast in three days until the 1960s or maybe later, at least not reliably.
Fuel is better, lubricants are better, tires are better, metal alloys are better, electric components are better (mostly), fuel mileage is better. (The small car that got 35-40 mpg forty years ago gets the same mileage but is 1000 pounds heavier and much safer to drive.)
- Status
