Car Bumpers

[Red Arrow]

Neal Bortz mentioned on his radio show that he would never buy another BMW, he said he hit a aluminum gate post at 3 mph and the gate was slightly damaged BUT, his BMW required $13,000 in repairs.

Maybe if he had been watching where he was going instead of his speedometer, he wouldn't have hit the post.  $13,000 is still a lot of repair money.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Poor little Bortz....

Engines have had a lot of help from a lot of directions, including oil, filters, electronic ignition, and just plain old unleaded gas.  Higher octane, by definition comes about due to additives that slow the speed of burn of gasoline.  Contaminants.  MTBE is the big one today, versus lead from long ago.  And it burns much, much cleaner.

1954 Buick was helped a lot by having insert bearings.  Sometime just before that (year or two or three) they still had babbit (lead with nickel) bearings that would work ok, but if you went much more than 60mph for extended periods, you would get a couple thousand miles out of the engine.  Yep, 2000.
Hold it under 60 and you could go 50, 60, or even 100,000 if you were careful.

The reason the cars would slide up over the bumpers was because they were going OVER 5mph.  Under that, they would bump.  And not do $6,000 worth of damage.

Big trucks with high bumpers is another one of those things lost to the mists of time... deregulation at all costs.  Especially when it can put people in danger and give the illusion to "independence" from government intrusion.

Quit lecture mode?  Well how would any reality intrude here?

Just like I said.  Available.  Not required to be present.  In fact, an extra cost option until mid/late sixties.  

US manufacturers were working on engine technology in the sixties - finally.  After being required to.

Mandatory was the ONLY way it was ever going to happen.  And I drove a bunch of those cars.  Some were much worse than others.  But they were still a ton of fun.  1968 Corvette with 427, 4 speed close ratio was unbelievable for a young punk kid.  (Me.)  Got do drive one on occasion.  Wow!

See how China is today with their pollution?  That would be us today - still - without mandatory.  And just think of all the increases in technology and economic activity that would not have resulted if it had not happened.  (Just like we have lost the solar and wind power industries in this country due to Reagan/Bush/Bush policies.)

And at the same time we were struggling our way through those bad performing cars, complements of GM, Ford, and Chrysler - Honda brought us the CVCC engine.  At more miles per gallon than anyone could imagine.  I remember Honda (or one of their engineering company associates) put one of those style heads on a regular old 350 cu.in. Chevy engine and the thing got about 23 mpg.  PLUS passed ALL the pollution control standards about 5 years ahead of due date.  (This was early 1970's)  Adt it performed much better than the regular old "good GM feeling" Chevy engine.  No excuses for driveability problems!!

Revisionist history alert - comment has been made that brakes were improved without government regulation.
No GM brakes were worth the metal it took to make them until the mid 60's.  I have driven AND worked on many of all era's from the 30's to today's.  And other manufacturers, too.  Jaguar had a disk in 1961 XKE that wasn't too bad, but was inboard from wheel, so a real pain.  If memory serves, you had to drop the entire rear end to get to its brakes.  Never got to work on Corvette disk.  Bet it was ok.

WITH government regulation, they finally started to make improvements.

Ralph Nader and his methods caused no safety improvements.  They did coerce/shame/whatever the government into finally doing something along the lines of safety regulations.

The point is that the car manufacturers were capable of improvements but that NO car manufacturer in the US actually made any of those improvements until forced to.  And in fact, fought long, hard, expensive, drawn out battles to resist EVERY safety/pollution change EVER put in place.

Space race has been stagnant and done nothing in the last 20 years.  NASA has become an over-bloated bureacracy that has trouble getting out of its own way.  VERY sad.  98% (or more) of the innovation/invention from space was before 20 years ago.  And you are right, there was a TON of it!!

In case anyone would like to argue the above statement about NASA, good!  Please do.  But before we start, find ONE thing that is new/innovative/inventive or "gee whiz" that they have done since 1985.  (That gives a 25 year window to work in!)  Something that is NOT derivative or repetitious of what they had been doing in 1984 and before.  (Upgrading the shuttle computers from IBM 360's is not innovative, it is derivative).

Ok, ok,  I will stop now.  Looking forward to replies!!!

[Red Arrow]

1954 Buick was helped a lot by having insert bearings.  Sometime just before that (year or two or three) they still had babbit (lead with nickel) bearings that would work ok, but if you went much more than 60mph for extended periods, you would get a couple thousand miles out of the engine.  Yep, 2000.
Hold it under 60 and you could go 50, 60, or even 100,000 if you were careful.

That's probably why the big (320 in^3) straight 8s were slow turners with lots of torque (for the time).  I couldn't find any RPM vs Road Speed data.  Buick's V8 was introduced in some models in 53, all had them in 54.   That series of   The straight 8 had a year run of about 18 years.  It was time to upgrade.  Styling was heavily involved due to the trend of shorter, lower hoods that wouldn't fit a long, tall straight 8.  

Big trucks with high bumpers is another one of those things lost to the mists of time... deregulation at all costs.  Especially when it can put people in danger and give the illusion to "independence" from government intrusion.

What I saw was that for off-road work angle of entry to a ditch etc made standard bumper heights impractical for trucks that were actually used as work vehicles.  Same excuse for SUVs.  The fact that most never leave a paved surface doesn't seem to matter.

Quit lecture mode?  Well how would any reality intrude here?

There's a difference between presenting information and talking down to people.

Just like I said.  Available.  Not required to be present.  In fact, an extra cost option until mid/late sixties.  

Seat belts are something I believe in.  I agree they should have been mandatory sooner.   I think they help protect me from you by keeping you behind the wheel.  Some around here disagree but they have never driven on country roads back east (PA) with unexpected bumps and curves.  If someone wants to die needlessly in a car wreck, I guess that's their right as long as they don't take someone else with them.

US manufacturers were working on engine technology in the sixties - finally.  After being required to.

What regulation required the changes from the late 30s to the 50s?  The 60s were the next generation of changes being worked on.  Technology changes would have happened anyway.

BUICK - The Post War Years,  Norbye & Dunne, 1978, p120:

"Preliminary studies for the new generation of V8 engines began in 1962.  ... There was no Clean Air Act at the time the design was started, and no emission standards had been set by the date of production startup."  Earlier on the page a mention was made of "new emission control standards coming into effect in 1968."

Mandatory was the ONLY way it was ever going to happen.  And I drove a bunch of those cars.  Some were much worse than others.  But they were still a ton of fun.  1968 Corvette with 427, 4 speed close ratio was unbelievable for a young punk kid.  (Me.)  Got do drive one on occasion.  Wow!

Specific pollutants, yes.  Acid rain precipitated by catalytic convertors were an unintended result.  Then fuel sulphur had to lowered. I believe that engine efficiency would have been improved, lowering overall pollution by burning less fuel, longer service intervals and engine life would have been improved as marketing tools even without government mandates.

And at the same time we were struggling our way through those bad performing cars, complements of GM, Ford, and Chrysler - Honda brought us the CVCC engine.  At more miles per gallon than anyone could imagine.  I remember Honda (or one of their engineering company associates) put one of those style heads on a regular old 350 cu.in. Chevy engine and the thing got about 23 mpg.  PLUS passed ALL the pollution control standards about 5 years ahead of due date.  (This was early 1970's)  Adt it performed much better than the regular old "good GM feeling" Chevy engine.  No excuses for driveability problems!!

Imagine, a 2000 pound Civic CVCC with about a 1200 cc engine getting better gas mileage than a 3500 to 4000 pound car with 5700 cc V8. I think the price and availability of gasoline may have made people trade in a car that would take a family of 5, 2 dogs, a week's worth of clothes, a picnic table, a portable charcoal grill, and the ability to haul a 3000 pound boat for a car like the Civic. I am not belittling the Civic, it was/is a good car, but its capabilities were different.  (1977 Civic: 2000 lb, $3000.  1977 Accord: 3000 lb, $4000.  Numbers are approximate from my memory detailing new cars at AI Honda in the late 70s)  I have no information on the Honda CVCC style heads on the Chevy engine.  Sometimes a successful "proof of concept" has a difficult time making it to economical production models.

Revisionist history alert - comment has been made that brakes were improved without government regulation.
No GM brakes were worth the metal it took to make them until the mid 60's.  I have driven AND worked on many of all era's from the 30's to today's.  And other manufacturers, too.  Jaguar had a disk in 1961 XKE that wasn't too bad, but was inboard from wheel, so a real pain.  If memory serves, you had to drop the entire rear end to get to its brakes.  Never got to work on Corvette disk.  Bet it was ok.

WITH government regulation, they finally started to make improvements.

BUICK - The Post War Years,  Norbye & Dunne, 1978, p39-41

""In 1950 we developed test vehicles for brake research ," Frank Daley explained to us. "That was when the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) brake standards started."

"From having had one of the poorest, if not absolute worst brake systems in the industry, Buick suddenly had the best by far. "By 1960," recalls Frank Daley,..."

There is no mention of government regulations on brakes in this era, just SAE.  Buick started their brake program because bad brakes were affecting sales.  The "best brakes" were, however only seen on the full size cars.  The Skylark (same as Chevelle, Cutlas, Tempest) got some finned drums until front discs became standard.  I used to call the brakes on my 66 Skylark GS as good for 1/2 panic stop from 70 mph (due to fade).  The car would still stop but the fade was very evident.  I never saw that on the 63 LeSabre, 65 LeSabre, or 67 LeSabre, all with drums all around.

Sidenote: My brother had a 1960 Triumph (car) TR-3A with standard hydraulic front disc brakes.  Supposedly the first production car with standard front disc brakes, even ahead of Jag.

I also heard via an acquaintance that the Delaware State Troopers thought the MOPAR police interceptor brakes in the early 70s weren't worth a crap at 150 mph.

Ralph Nader and his methods caused no safety improvements.  They did coerce/shame/whatever the government into finally doing something along the lines of safety regulations.

OK, play semantics.  I believe if Nadar had not been the activist he was, the government would have been much slower to react, if they would have at all.  Just my opinion.

The point is that the car manufacturers were capable of improvements but that NO car manufacturer in the US actually made any of those improvements until forced to.  And in fact, fought long, hard, expensive, drawn out battles to resist EVERY safety/pollution change EVER put in place.

Through the mid sixties or so we disagree.  By the time of the late sixties and later I mostly agree.  I believe some was resistance to how much, how soon.  Some was just plain disagreement.

Space race has been stagnant and done nothing in the last 20 years.  NASA has become an over-bloated bureacracy that has trouble getting out of its own way.  VERY sad.  98% (or more) of the innovation/invention from space was before 20 years ago.  And you are right, there was a TON of it!!

In case anyone would like to argue the above statement about NASA, good!  Please do.  But before we start, find ONE thing that is new/innovative/inventive or "gee whiz" that they have done since 1985.  (That gives a 25 year window to work in!)  Something that is NOT derivative or repetitious of what they had been doing in 1984 and before.  (Upgrading the shuttle computers from IBM 360's is not innovative, it is derivative).

Ok, ok,  I will stop now.  Looking forward to replies!!!

Yep.  It would be difficult to have improvements to cars 20 years ago using space developments that would have happened only 10 years ago.  What is your difficulty with derivative developments?  It's difficult to have derivative developments from something that never happened.

Edit: see red in main text

[heironymouspasparagus]

I "live and breathe" the kind of improvements done derivatively.  Everything used in my job has realistically appeared in the last 20-25 years.  But all improvements to things "invented"  50 to 90 years ago.  Literally gone from mechanical pencil to computer drawing, in 3D even.  It would be nice to have something truly, actually new once in a while, too.  I missed that boat with the invention of semiconductors in the late '40s.

Lack of focus moment -  someone in the neighborhood is grilling barbeque chicken out and the smell is making me crazy!

That Chevy was an amazing thing.  I had been driving "that" car for over a decade by then ('52 Chevy, 54 Ford, 57 Chevy, 58 Chevy, 57 Chevy panel van, 61 Chevy, 61 Chevy panel van, 63 Buick Skylark, 61 Volkswagen, 65 Buick Wildcat, 66 Olds Delta, 68 Olds Delta, 70 Cutlass, 72 Delta, 75 Delta, 78 Olds Delta ...well you get the idea.  All but 5 of those were family cars - 6 mine - that I put about 300,000 miles on in about a 5-6 year time.  (You can probably see a theme here and may well be able to understand the complete and total betrayal someone like me feels from GM due to their complete incompetence in recent years.  This doesn't include the list of Buick and Olds of one close family member starting in 1931 - until moving to Ford in 1989 - that I didn't get to drive.)  I did get to have a '32 Ford Vicky and a '33 Packard to use/work on for a while, both of which were sorry examples of automobiles compared to today, but were wonderful for the time.  Still way cool to drive.  Packard steering was kind of funky, but their straight 8 was in a very fun car to drive.  So was the Vicky.

And yet, none of that kind of Chevy ever appeared, even though it was offered by Honda for licensing.  It would have gotten in the way of the cozy big car/big oil relationships. 

There were also a bunch of garage shop hybrids makers out there in the 70's that did some amazing things.  There was one guy who put electric motor, batteries and generator in an Opel Cadet (poor man's Corvette) and got about 70mpg in his hybrid.  If you are interested, it was published in Mother Earth News Magazine in about 1977.  It can be found with a little digging on their web site today, complete with really crude plans.  But then it took another 20 years before a car company got serious about it.  And that was Toyota.  Another lost market/economic development/jobs opportunity. 

I see Ford is coming on strong bragging about their hybrid technology.  The same technology they licensed from Toyota.  Unless they decided to innovate themselves recently.

And ALL those cars had crap for bumpers until the 1978 Olds Delta (75 Olds Delta was about halfway between crap and reasonable).  About the time the regulations started.

Through mid sixties - seat belts.  Prime example of "fighting and screaming" all the way.

[Red Arrow]

  There was one guy who put electric motor, batteries and generator in an Opel Cadet (poor man's Corvette) and got about 70mpg in his hybrid. 

I remember a guy (electronics tech, I hate to say) from my Navy days.  He wanted to put an electric motor and battery set in a car as a pure electric.  He was then going to put a generator on the propulsion motor to recharge the propulsion batteries as he drove the car.  I'm not sure I convinced him that his plan was essentially perpetual motion.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Yeah.... that ain't gonna work.

Solar cells on the roof!!
Solar cells are down to under $3 per watt now.  230 watt panel for about $500.  Fantastic!

[sauerkraut]

Many cars of the past got better gas mileage than the cars of today, just look at the old car ads from the 1970's and early 1980's in "Time" & "NewsWeek" mags. The Honda Civic got something like 45 mpg, the Ford Pinto got 38mpg or some such number. It seems all the smog control devices on the new vehicles choke off fuel economy. The old VW's and the VW Rabbit got super fuel mileage, The diesel models even did better- The big cars of the 1970's were poor on fuel though.

[sauerkraut]

I remember a guy (electronics tech, I hate to say) from my Navy days.  He wanted to put an electric motor and battery set in a car as a pure electric.  He was then going to put a generator on the propulsion motor to recharge the propulsion batteries as he drove the car.  I'm not sure I convinced him that his plan was essentially perpetual motion.

Yeah there is always alot of talk about that, another spin off was having a electric car with generators on all 4 wheels and as the car drove down the highway  the spinning 4 generators connected to the tires  would re-charge the batteries and run the car as it went. The "Perpetual motion theory" thing says it cannot be done.

[Hoss]

Yeah there is always alot of talk about that, another spin off was having a electric car with generators on all 4 wheels and as the car drove down the highway  the spinning 4 generators connected to the tires  would re-charge the batteries and run the car as it went. The "Perpetual motion theory" thing says it cannot be done.

tick, tock.....tick, tock.

[patric]

MMmm, car bumpers are delicious.

[heironymouspasparagus]

There has been a LOT of BS floating around about the old (60's) VW Beetle.  It never got anywhere near 30 mpg.  The Rabbit diesel consistently got 45 to 50, though.  (I owned two Beetles, family member owned one and couple of friends each owned one, so I know what they got.)

Other than that, they were a wonderful little piece of crap car.  Am looking for one now.  60's model.

[sauerkraut]

There has been a LOT of BS floating around about the old (60's) VW Beetle.  It never got anywhere near 30 mpg.  The Rabbit diesel consistently got 45 to 50, though.  (I owned two Beetles, family member owned one and couple of friends each owned one, so I know what they got.)

Other than that, they were a wonderful little piece of crap car.  Am looking for one now.  60's model.

I thought the old 60's VW did better than that, but what the heck gasoline was only 30 cents a gallon back then- I was surprised of the gas mileage other small cars got from mag. ads in the 1970's. The Ford Pinto did very well as did the Vega with a 4 cylinder banger. I bet if you could build a heap with a 3 or 4 cylinder 2 cycle engine with no emission controls  fuel mileage would be well over 50 per gallon. A 3 cylinder two cycle engine should have about as much power as a 6 cylinder four cycle engine since with the two cycle every other stroke is a power stroke. I wish the USA would get more diesels vehicles on the road like what they have in Europe. I'd like to see a half ton pick-up truck with a diesel

[sauerkraut]

That video Patric posted about the dogs and patrol car is something else. The dogs did alot of damage to the car and it seems the cop did not know what to do.

[Red Arrow]

I liked the Super Beetle (1972ish) but never cared for the original suspension on the regular Beetle.  I went on trip with some college friends in a regular Beetle. I rode in the back seat.  The driver wasn't crazy or anything stupid but I just didn't care for the way the car appeared to handle. Other than that, if you kept the valves adjusted, they were a pretty reliable car.

[heironymouspasparagus]

As an example of German engineering, they were pretty mediocre, but they were designed for a particular purpose - to be the Model T of Germany.  I got from 21 to 25 in mine.  That was about average for everyone I knew personally.

Lot's of maintenance, lots of compromises (suspension, heating, and air conditioning), but they are just too cool not to have one.  I love them.  That's why I am looking.


Every single one of the things required for pollution is also required for better mileage from fuel to electronic controls to spark plugs.  This is probably the "best" trade-off in the whole field.  You really would not want to go back.

Car without emissions would be a catastrophe due to several engineering reasons.  The first thing that would happen would be to cheapen everything from coils to valves to pistons to carburetors.  One of the big things that makes cars go 100,000 miles between tune ups is the unleaded gas.  If you have that, then must have either much more MTBE or much heavier blocks/pistons for huge pressures (25:1 or so - like a diesel) instead of lower pressures today.  That extra weight takes care of any extra gas mileage.  Every bit of the engine design is a trade off.  Plus, if I remember right, the higher combustion temperatures required for the higher pressure does some 'not so good' things for combustion by products (don't hold me to that...need an automotive combustion engineer).

Two cycle would weigh less, but then you would have to rebuild the thing every 30,000 miles (much higher RPM's for same horse/torque, much more wear).  "Course, it would cost less to rebuild, but the oil/filter would be  very funky and oil mixed with gas is horribly inefficient for lubrication as well as being a mess for pollution control, making wear worse on the piston and other moving parts.  LOTS of trade-offs.

After all the trade-offs, the car (say a 350 cu/in 1971 Chevy Impala) would probably last much shorter time than the 4 cycle and would probably end up costing noticeably more in maintenance during that time.  Might only be about the same or just a little less to rebuild.  Plus it would make the world a much more polluted place.

Half ton with diesel sounds good, but there is a trade-off (as always).  To keep people from exceeding the capacity of the chassis, the engine would have to be "smaller".  That would be ok, but I think many would be tempted to overload and do dangerous things.  Diesel is great, especially with the new generation of electronic controls they are getting.  The big trucks are getting an extra hassle built in for pollution control - some require an additive tank that must be kept up.  Don't really understand it all yet, but sounds like a kind of a pain.