Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Aerodynamics
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-17-2009, 08:25 AM   #21 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 216
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Subaru has shared parts with other makes, but not Ford that I've ever seen. Some electrical components, the rear differential, and I believe some of the old carbs, were shared with Nissan as Nissan has/had a 3% share. Thankfully, they didn't share much. Now they are owned by Toyota and they are dead to me. Perhaps you're thinking of Mazda. Ford had owned 33%, but just sold the shares back to Mazda a couple of months ago.

I mostly hate big cars, but I'm a minority. Most people love their trucks and their small SUVs because they feel safer sitting up high (the lizard brain is very much controlled by fear). The reason for the very sudden shift to small cars was the rapid rise in gasoline costs. Just like the other rare times Americans have shifted away from large vehicles. It's necessity, not preference. Perhaps its a substitute for a sense of powerlessness (which would jive with the oft-quoted safety as being a reason for driving these battleships) likely brought on by the same over-stressed, over-worked, and over-competitive consumer-identity culture that also leads some to mass murder. Or it could just be that Americans have the viable option to drive giant vehicles (relatively wide streets, frequent long distance travel, cheap gas) and that people from anywhere would do the same under the same circumstances. Pragmatism and moderation are among the most rare of virtues among the humans.

As for the Big 2.5, the executives got them into a hole the unions won't let them out of. Stupid, typically short-sighted union concessions made over 30 years ago have trapped the companies in staggering and ridiculous legacy costs and inability to downsize. To idle a UAW factory, the company has to pay them 90% of their pay to sit at home. Makes more sense to just leave them there to flood the market with cars nobody wants already, further hurting their future sales by bringing down the trade-in values. But that's the typical short-sighted American business model. It's all for the quick buck, keep the idiot board happy so they can go out and spend their money on curing cancer and providing education and health care to the poor. Or maybe it was blowing it on exclusive country club memberships, bribing government officials to undermine fair representation in the republic, huge yachts that sit at dock most of the year, and elaborate parties for their kids, I forget which. Either way, greed on both sides is to blame.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 04-17-2009, 09:02 AM   #22 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cookeville, TN
Posts: 850
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolutionmovement View Post
Subaru has shared parts with other makes, but not Ford that I've ever seen. Some electrical components, the rear differential, and I believe some of the old carbs, were shared with Nissan as Nissan has/had a 3% share. Thankfully, they didn't share much. Now they are owned by Toyota and they are dead to me. Perhaps you're thinking of Mazda. Ford had owned 33%, but just sold the shares back to Mazda a couple of months ago.

I mostly hate big cars, but I'm a minority. Most people love their trucks and their small SUVs because they feel safer sitting up high (the lizard brain is very much controlled by fear). The reason for the very sudden shift to small cars was the rapid rise in gasoline costs. Just like the other rare times Americans have shifted away from large vehicles. It's necessity, not preference. Perhaps its a substitute for a sense of powerlessness (which would jive with the oft-quoted safety as being a reason for driving these battleships) likely brought on by the same over-stressed, over-worked, and over-competitive consumer-identity culture that also leads some to mass murder. Or it could just be that Americans have the viable option to drive giant vehicles (relatively wide streets, frequent long distance travel, cheap gas) and that people from anywhere would do the same under the same circumstances. Pragmatism and moderation are among the most rare of virtues among the humans.

As for the Big 2.5, the executives got them into a hole the unions won't let them out of. Stupid, typically short-sighted union concessions made over 30 years ago have trapped the companies in staggering and ridiculous legacy costs and inability to downsize. To idle a UAW factory, the company has to pay them 90% of their pay to sit at home. Makes more sense to just leave them there to flood the market with cars nobody wants already, further hurting their future sales by bringing down the trade-in values. But that's the typical short-sighted American business model. It's all for the quick buck, keep the idiot board happy so they can go out and spend their money on curing cancer and providing education and health care to the poor. Or maybe it was blowing it on exclusive country club memberships, bribing government officials to undermine fair representation in the republic, huge yachts that sit at dock most of the year, and elaborate parties for their kids, I forget which. Either way, greed on both sides is to blame.
I can agree with this completely. and once again I apologize for the subaru mistake(I really have no clue where that came from(the mechanic is a Ford guy so he might have been wanting to claim it in the club since he liked them as well(before they started making their cars taller and more SUVesque))).

If the executives had jumped the gun and moved SUVs to at least Aero, 6 cylinder, fwd, lighter, shorter platforms they would maybe still be competing but they didn't and now as you said the contracts make it impossible to escape.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 11:49 AM   #23 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 131

Impala - '04 Chevrolet Impala base
90 day: 32.84 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
A few things are getting more aerodynamic, but sadly the true innovation and real fuel savings are not coming to the consumer like they should.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...html#post98620

The above post is in regards to the new Honda Insight, and specifically how it is getting less EPA rated fuel economy than the Honda Civic Hybrid (both are hybrids).

Add into the mix, my "large" Chevy Impala, getting great fuel economy on the highway, and we have 4cyl smaller cars not able to even break 30 mpg??? Come on, aero is one thing, proper balance of hp/weight with the right gearing, right design, and a caring foot are the other things needed to get us rolling with less fuel. Too bad we cannot give the bigwigs running around in Excursions and BMW 7 series(just a couple of examples, no picking meant) a 20 dollar per week fuel allowance and see how they deal with thier beloved fuel suckers.

/rant
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 12:07 PM   #24 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cookeville, TN
Posts: 850
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unforgiven View Post
A few things are getting more aerodynamic, but sadly the true innovation and real fuel savings are not coming to the consumer like they should.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...html#post98620

The above post is in regards to the new Honda Insight, and specifically how it is getting less EPA rated fuel economy than the Honda Civic Hybrid (both are hybrids).

Add into the mix, my "large" Chevy Impala, getting great fuel economy on the highway, and we have 4cyl smaller cars not able to even break 30 mpg??? Come on, aero is one thing, proper balance of hp/weight with the right gearing, right design, and a caring foot are the other things needed to get us rolling with less fuel. Too bad we cannot give the bigwigs running around in Excursions and BMW 7 series(just a couple of examples, no picking meant) a 20 dollar per week fuel allowance and see how they deal with thier beloved fuel suckers.

/rant
Actually. . .let them drive their big fuel suckers. . .then show them a Lamborghini Reventon, a Ferrari Enzo and a McClaren F1 LM and tell them they could drive those cars if they fired their marketing/design people and let their engineers do their job.

Designers always want to add things that don't neccessarily help FE and aero and other things. Engineers pretty classically like to strip away as much as possible. Then allow one designer in with 10 engineers and let him make modifications that don't hurt the design but allow a little bit of style in. Problem solved. Also designers and marketing people are the ones that really push this idea of bigger engine huge car. I don't know very many engineers that like massive cars. . .they usually go work and build tanks instead(who would rather build an SUV than a tank. . .same gas mileage and you get a 125 mm gun and treads!)
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 01:15 PM   #25 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 216
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
The problem with cars is the classic one of them being at least partly an emotional purchase, rather than a more strictly practical one, which makes marketing a large factor in sales success. Even the people I know that couldn't care less about cars have a favorite one (though most classics weren't designed by committees or marketing departments). I don't think the same thing could be said about toasters, though catchy design has made its way into the appliance segment in about the last 10 years, so my long-abused analogy is dating badly. Nevertheless (and unable to let my analogy go quietly into that good night), those appliance designs are, as theunchoosen suggested for ways of improvement, predominately done by engineers and made attractive by designers. Form follows function. That should be the mantra of any designer, however, nowadays most of the people referred to as designers are really just stylists. A designer should be involved with product functional improvement as well as appearance. The engineers should be there to slap them into sensibility if the design violates physics or common sense. That push-pull relationship between engineering and design is what works best, but only if the relationship is equal, which it isn't when marketing gets involved and sides with the designers/stylists or imposes "design" of their own [shudder].
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 01:28 PM   #26 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cookeville, TN
Posts: 850
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolutionmovement View Post
The problem with cars is the classic one of them being at least partly an emotional purchase, rather than a more strictly practical one, which makes marketing a large factor in sales success. Even the people I know that couldn't care less about cars have a favorite one (though most classics weren't designed by committees or marketing departments). I don't think the same thing could be said about toasters, though catchy design has made its way into the appliance segment in about the last 10 years, so my long-abused analogy is dating badly. Nevertheless (and unable to let my analogy go quietly into that good night), those appliance designs are, as theunchoosen suggested for ways of improvement, predominately done by engineers and made attractive by designers. Form follows function. That should be the mantra of any designer, however, nowadays most of the people referred to as designers are really just stylists. A designer should be involved with product functional improvement as well as appearance. The engineers should be there to slap them into sensibility if the design violates physics or common sense. That push-pull relationship between engineering and design is what works best, but only if the relationship is equal, which it isn't when marketing gets involved and sides with the designers/stylists or imposes "design" of their own [shudder].
Enter the C1, the website has audio so turn your speakers down before jumping and then find the mute sound switch at the bottom left of the mid screen picture (MotoCzysz home). Its NOT FE friendly but it is designed by an engineer above all else.

Thats why I like cars like the Ariel Atom, Honda NSX, Lotus(virtually all of their cars), McClaren F1, Gallardo, Murcielago, and Enzo. They are engineered cars not designed. Yeah the Insight is too it gets major props(I'm a biased petrolhead. . .at heart so I favor those others first).

If the vehicle looks spartan, but allows for FE and HP(lotus), I will love it period. The Insight's only got half that package but its FE side is far superior but its not a balance of car performance(a measure of the vehicles ability to economically travel from a to b as well as provide exhilerating rush to wherever once or twice a month.)

Thats all I ask. Fire your marketing people make it look roughly like a car with a very aero frame from CF/FG throughout ultra-lightweight rims GDI with ultra-lean burn capability and an on off supercharger and you can give me cranking windows(or a big bar that slides up and down thats bolted to the window for all I care).
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 01:47 PM   #27 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 811 Times in 594 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolutionmovement View Post
The reason for the very sudden shift to small cars was the rapid rise in gasoline costs. Just like the other rare times Americans have shifted away from large vehicles.
Understand that I'm not talking about the events of the last year, but about the trend of the last half century, since the first VW Beetles came to this country. Take a look at some of the standard cars from that era, like the '59 Chevy or Ford Galaxie. They make the typical SUV look like a miracle of efficiency by comparison: sheet metal that overhangs the tires by half a foot, engine compartments that you could climb into - with the engine still in them! - trunks big enough to carry all the corpses from a mass murder...

Cost isn't really an issue, either. Sure, the imports can produce any given model cheaper (that's one reason they had some success moving into the midsize & SUV segments that Detroit created), but most people who are primarily concerned with price buy used cars. The upscale side of the import/smaller car market - the Lexus/BMW/Porsche segment - manages to sell smaller cars at MSRPs well above those of Detroit's larger products. Nor have most of those smaller but expensive models offered outstanding fuel economy as a selling point.

Of course there's a market segment that does want big cars, and another one that buys what advertising makes popular - the commercials showing X-model SUV driving through attractive scenery probably sell the idea of the scenery more than the particular vehicle - but they're far from being the whole market. The only reasonable conclusion from the evidence is that a lot of Americans do in fact want smaller cars, because in spite of all the SUV advertising, that's what they actually buy & drive.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 01:59 PM   #28 (permalink)
PSmodder lurker
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chino
Posts: 1,605
Thanks: 26
Thanked 908 Times in 522 Posts
Kiss

My simple brain likes to boil it down as simple as possible. The American executives' job is to make their companies and shareholders as much money as possible. Introduce vehicle types and models that would have their assembly lines humming to supply their thousands of global dealers. They put out a minivan, Caravan, and sold millions. They introduce a purpose built electric car, EV1, and for market analysis & marketing feasibility. The technology support, infrastructure & market was not there and lost the company 80K for every returned & shredded car. They show aero vehicles, Probe concepts, at various car shows that the public just ignored. People prefer the return of the Mustang instead. Gas is relatively cheap so they have to sell & make billions on the most successful model line, the F-150. The SUVs were the logical progression of these truck platforms and made even more billions on them. Everyone made them. Really simple, they have to make stuff that people buy. It is that car executive's duty to sell 'em or the shareholders will fire their a** for missing 'that' boat. So that combined dysfunctional addiction was horribly set. The global economy & trade changes and this dysfunction could not change or not fast enough. Company cities & legacy corporations die or disappear. So long, GM & Chrysler. Out of the ashes, small, smarter, & innovative entrepreneurial spirits introduce new ideas & products that people will want & buy.
And my head didn't hurt a bit.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 02:08 PM   #29 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cookeville, TN
Posts: 850
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Seriously. . .I will say this again. Every major newspaper has ahd an article within the last 6 months that regardless of gas price trends people still buy mostly SUVs. virtually every other car here is an SUV and I know its worse in other areas.

People who buy lexus/BMW and Porsche buy them for one reason, Spirit/Feel/class. It has 0 to do with hp, price Fe or comfort. There are pieces that fit each of those categories better than those manufacturers and some that manage all of those factors better at the same time.

People who buy sports cars buy them because they like the look.

Most Americans buy large vehicles because they like the theoretical status it yields them to travel in their own personel motorcade.

Reasonable people like cars and wagons more. Reasonable people like lower prices. Reasonable people will always buy lower priced imports. The people who buy SUVs and trucks cannot be considered reasonable because these days there is no reason to own one(unless of course its a true SUV=HMMWV and you live in BFE).

So the argument that you expect unreasonable people to do a reasonable thing is a non sequitur. logic is the sine que non of rational decisions.

Most americans do not go off-roading, do not drive through mountains of snow, the woods, or have truly steep driveways that are gravel and require serious traction. So its illogical for them to own SUVs period. Just because it gets alittle more expensive you are banking there is logic in there somewhere.

Watch the cars near you on teh highway and you will be surprised that its not there, because those large FE-unfriendly vehicles are still everywhere and will be for the foreseeable future.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 02:11 PM   #30 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cookeville, TN
Posts: 850
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by botsapper View Post
My simple brain likes to boil it down as simple as possible. The American executives' job is to make their companies and shareholders as much money as possible. Introduce vehicle types and models that would have their assembly lines humming to supply their thousands of global dealers. They put out a minivan, Caravan, and sold millions. They introduce a purpose built electric car, EV1, and for market analysis & marketing feasibility. The technology support, infrastructure & market was not there and lost the company 80K for every returned & shredded car. They show aero vehicles, Probe concepts, at various car shows that the public just ignored. People prefer the return of the Mustang instead. Gas is relatively cheap so they have to sell & make billions on the most successful model line, the F-150. The SUVs were the logical progression of these truck platforms and made even more billions on them. Everyone made them. Really simple, they have to make stuff that people buy. It is that car executive's duty to sell 'em or the shareholders will fire their a** for missing 'that' boat. So that combined dysfunctional addiction was horribly set. The global economy & trade changes and this dysfunction could not change or not fast enough. Company cities & legacy corporations die or disappear. So long, GM & Chrysler. Out of the ashes, small, smarter, & innovative entrepreneurial spirits introduce new ideas & products that people will want & buy.
And my head didn't hurt a bit.
You're assuming that there is no government intervention(which there will be). They will insert their nasty fingers and the US auto industry will limp on in its elephantitis state until someone has the guts to let it die and let out a whole sack full of new business creatures with car ideas.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Article: Want cars to eat less? Put 'em on a diet MetroMPG General Efficiency Discussion 34 07-14-2013 01:38 AM
Project: Rebuilding an '01 Honda Insight as a nonhybrid Fabio Hybrids 158 01-12-2013 11:59 AM
Cars compared in wind tunnel Bearleener Aerodynamics 30 08-26-2011 05:38 PM
Sources of Aerodynamic Drag in Automobiles and Possible Solutions SVOboy Aerodynamics 12 02-17-2010 02:09 PM
wheeldams - ideal average on production cars lunarhighway Aerodynamics 2 11-03-2008 12:22 PM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com