Are car companies intending to make things difficult?

[oiprocs]

Engine light comes on, you gotta go to the dealer and find out what the code means. (or get one of those gagdets and have it tell you what's wrong).

Engines that look more and more complex.

Are car companies making things more difficult for you when you want to make modifications? It's definitely easier to take a 1992 Civic and customize the hell out of it.

Or are these "difficulties" just a byproduct of new technology?

 

[CrackRabbit]

The difficulty come from everything being computer/electronically controlled vs being mechanically controlled.

Lets use your example of a 1992 Civic vs a 2009 Civic.

The 1992 Civic is likely to still have a mechanical distributor vs the 2009s computer controlled coilpacks.
The 1992 probably didn't have variable valve timing, yet another computer controlled item.
The Automatic transmission in the 2009 will have computer controlled shift points, where the 1992 was all hydraulics.
See where this is all going.

But the computers bring efficiency and more power to a car that is heavier and quite a bit safer.
1992 Civic: 1.5ltr motor, 109hp, 98ftlbs torque, 30/36 milage, 2319 lbs curb weight.
2009 Civic: 1.8ltr, 140hp, 128ftlbs, 26/34, 2659

 

[Atrail]

Electronic sensors are better than the alternative, no sensor/ruined engine.
I have a base model 2004 Corolla and it is caveman easy to work on, no dealer needed.
On the Volvo it is a different story, the higher end models have technology that forces you into the dealer for some repairs or modifications.

 

[natto fire]

No. It is a byproduct of squeezing more safety, fuel economy, and reliability out of a machine that has remained basically the same since it was invented.

 

[radioouman]

Yes. Dealerships don't make much profit on sales of new cars. They make their profit in service and used car sales. There is also a push to bring customers back to the dealers for service rather than independent mechanics.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
The difficulty come from everything being computer/electronically controlled vs being mechanically controlled.

Lets use your example of a 1992 Civic vs a 2009 Civic.

The 1992 Civic is likely to still have a mechanical distributor vs the 2009s computer controlled coilpacks.
The 1992 probably didn't have variable valve timing, yet another computer controlled item.
The Automatic transmission in the 2009 will have computer controlled shift points, where the 1992 was all hydraulics.
See where this is all going.

But the computers bring efficiency and more power to a car that is heavier and quite a bit safer.
1992 Civic: 1.5ltr motor, 109hp, 98ftlbs torque, 30/36 milage, 2319 lbs curb weight.
2009 Civic: 1.8ltr, 140hp, 128ftlbs, 26/34, 2659

So in 17 years they managed to find a way to make a Civic get WORSE gas mileage?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
The difficulty come from everything being computer/electronically controlled vs being mechanically controlled.

Lets use your example of a 1992 Civic vs a 2009 Civic.

The 1992 Civic is likely to still have a mechanical distributor vs the 2009s computer controlled coilpacks.
The 1992 probably didn't have variable valve timing, yet another computer controlled item.
The Automatic transmission in the 2009 will have computer controlled shift points, where the 1992 was all hydraulics.
See where this is all going.

But the computers bring efficiency and more power to a car that is heavier and quite a bit safer.
1992 Civic: 1.5ltr motor, 109hp, 98ftlbs torque, 30/36 milage, 2319 lbs curb weight.
2009 Civic: 1.8ltr, 140hp, 128ftlbs, 26/34, 2659

So in 17 years they managed to find a way to make a Civic get WORSE gas mileage?

consider that it has more power and torque, fewer emissions, and moving 300lbs more, the decrease isn't all that bad.

 

[TraumaRN]

Well figure on my 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid, you can't check the trans fluid level(car has a electronic continuously variable transmission) I can't change the air filter(integrated) or fuel filter,(also integrated)

Both of those have to be taken to a dealer to be replaced...which is stupid. My old car I could change both.

I can check brake fluid/engine coolant etc tho. Oh and I can still change the oil in the car 😛

The electronics on that car are just ridiculous. Like the size of the ECU. Well, I take that back it technically has two ECUs, one for gas one for electric.

I can also still change the brakes on my car, but according to Ford at least I won't need to do a first brake change until...well never according to the maintenance schedule 😛

 

[radioouman]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
The difficulty come from everything being computer/electronically controlled vs being mechanically controlled.

Lets use your example of a 1992 Civic vs a 2009 Civic.

The 1992 Civic is likely to still have a mechanical distributor vs the 2009s computer controlled coilpacks.
The 1992 probably didn't have variable valve timing, yet another computer controlled item.
The Automatic transmission in the 2009 will have computer controlled shift points, where the 1992 was all hydraulics.
See where this is all going.

But the computers bring efficiency and more power to a car that is heavier and quite a bit safer.
1992 Civic: 1.5ltr motor, 109hp, 98ftlbs torque, 30/36 milage, 2319 lbs curb weight.
2009 Civic: 1.8ltr, 140hp, 128ftlbs, 26/34, 2659

So in 17 years they managed to find a way to make a Civic get WORSE gas mileage?

consider that it has more power and torque, fewer emissions, and moving 300lbs more, the decrease isn't all that bad.

It's also significantly larger.

 

[Jumpem]

Buy the longest manufacturer warranty you can (100-120k) and sell the car a few years later when you use it up.

 

[KentState]

Originally posted by: radioouman

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
The difficulty come from everything being computer/electronically controlled vs being mechanically controlled.

Lets use your example of a 1992 Civic vs a 2009 Civic.

The 1992 Civic is likely to still have a mechanical distributor vs the 2009s computer controlled coilpacks.
The 1992 probably didn't have variable valve timing, yet another computer controlled item.
The Automatic transmission in the 2009 will have computer controlled shift points, where the 1992 was all hydraulics.
See where this is all going.

But the computers bring efficiency and more power to a car that is heavier and quite a bit safer.
1992 Civic: 1.5ltr motor, 109hp, 98ftlbs torque, 30/36 milage, 2319 lbs curb weight.
2009 Civic: 1.8ltr, 140hp, 128ftlbs, 26/34, 2659

So in 17 years they managed to find a way to make a Civic get WORSE gas mileage?

consider that it has more power and torque, fewer emissions, and moving 300lbs more, the decrease isn't all that bad.

It's also significantly larger.

1990 Accord is almost the same size as a modern Civic. The Fit is closer to the Civic of the past.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: KentState
1990 Accord is almost the same size as a modern Civic. The Fit is closer to the Civic of the past.

Models tend to creep up. Think about it, who's going to buy a new model that's advertised as being less roomy than the car it replaces?

The new civic, now with 20% less legroom!

The only car company I know of that can get away with making their cars smaller with each new model is Lotus.

 

[big man]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ


So in 17 years they managed to find a way to make a Civic get WORSE gas mileage?

The new civic is exponentially cleaner, safer and more refined than the civic 17 years ago.

The public accepts a 30mpg civic, if they wanted more mpg honda would have replied to demand but up until a few years ago it just wasn't there

 

[LTC8K6]

My 1997 Z24 had no auto trans dipstick, so that's hardly new.

 

[rh71]

can someone explain why drive-by-wire is better? It drives me nuts sometimes... I just want to go as fast as I push the pedal the instant I push it. Does it manage up/down-shifting better by determining best revs or something? 😕

 

[Gibson486]

All I know is this....the location of the air fliter in the Mazda 3 sucks.

 

[LTC8K6]

can someone explain why drive-by-wire is better?

Mandatory ESP...

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: rh71
can someone explain why drive-by-wire is better? It drives me nuts sometimes... I just want to go as fast as I push the pedal the instant I push it. Does it manage up/down-shifting better by determining best revs or something? 😕

partly it'll be fuel economy/emissions. i :heart: the throttle cable in my car. i press a little, it goes a little, and if i press a lot, it goes a lot 🙂

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: rh71
can someone explain why drive-by-wire is better? It drives me nuts sometimes... I just want to go as fast as I push the pedal the instant I push it. Does it manage up/down-shifting better by determining best revs or something? 😕

Cheaper.

It standardizes a throttle and pedal assembly across multiple vehicles and also integrates cruise control into the main computer rather than requiring a secondary throttle cable with its own servo motor. It also allows manufacturers to limit the speed at which the throttle "snaps shut" when the accelerator pedal is abruptly lifted as snapping the throttle shut can cause a spike in emissions.

Electronic throttles also make it easier to employ rev limiters and speed limiters, as well as making implementation of traction control simpler.

ZV

 

[Pulsar]

Whole lotta fail here.

There is no standard for these communications inforced by law. As such, every company has come up with what they think is the cheapest and the best. There is no commonality either (unless it's by pure chance). This is NOT intentional by any means. I work in the industry and can guarantee you of that. Those that think it is should take off their tinfoil hats.

However, take note that each manufacturer has put a lot of money into developing ways to detect engine and other issues. Every engine you look at will have different types of sensors in different places. Indeed, even ones that look similar may be different - an oil pressure switch (on / off at one pressure) vs. an analog (that reads over the entire pressure range).

This means that manufacturers don't particular want to share that information or what it means. So you've got a bit of intellectual property protection mixed in with a totally non-standard system.. voila... royal pain in the ass.

So, to answer your question - yes. The vast majority of the complexity in today's vehicle computer systems is a result of the complexity of today's vehicle.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

In my car I can turn the key on and off three times to display the code in the odometer display without needing to get a reader. The complexity of today's cars is a result from the desire from people to have more features and the requirements of fuel efficiency, safety, and emissions that need to be met. The day when an engine required a fuel line, throttle linkage, 12v wire and coolant hoses to run is long gone. (and in the case of VWs, less than that) The idea of a "simple car" died in 1991.

Edit:
That said, replacing my spark plugs on my COP engine is easier than any distributor engine car I've ever had. Not having to deal with the wires is awesome!

 

[kalrith]

I'd say the sensors and check-engine information have improved over the years. For example, on my '92 Mercury Cougar the check-engine light will come on for a while and then turn off. If the light's not physically on, then no code will be thrown. Whereas on my '01 Mazda Tribute once the check-engine light shows up once, the code will remain until it's reset.

BTW, AutoZone will check the check-engine codes for free and give you a little print-out of what it says and possible causes and solutions. Sometimes the solution is obvious and can be fixed in the AutoZone parking lot. Sometimes the guys will even come out, use their tools, and switch the part for free. Sometimes the solution is not so obvious, but once you have the code, then you can check online to see if anyone else has had the same problem.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Pulsar
Whole lotta fail here.

There is no standard for these communications inforced by law. As such, every company has come up with what they think is the cheapest and the best. There is no commonality either (unless it's by pure chance). This is NOT intentional by any means. I work in the industry and can guarantee you of that. Those that think it is should take off their tinfoil hats.

However, take note that each manufacturer has put a lot of money into developing ways to detect engine and other issues. Every engine you look at will have different types of sensors in different places. Indeed, even ones that look similar may be different - an oil pressure switch (on / off at one pressure) vs. an analog (that reads over the entire pressure range).

This means that manufacturers don't particular want to share that information or what it means. So you've got a bit of intellectual property protection mixed in with a totally non-standard system.. voila... royal pain in the ass.

So, to answer your question - yes. The vast majority of the complexity in today's vehicle computer systems is a result of the complexity of today's vehicle.

Pssst! OBD-II is standardized. It's also forced by law.

Yes, there are some manufacturer-specific codes, but the vast majority of codes that trigger a check engine light (CEL) are standardized and can be pulled with any generic OBD-II reader.

ZV

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: big man

Originally posted by: 91TTZ


So in 17 years they managed to find a way to make a Civic get WORSE gas mileage?

The new civic is exponentially cleaner, safer and more refined than the civic 17 years ago.

The public accepts a 30mpg civic, if they wanted more mpg honda would have replied to demand but up until a few years ago it just wasn't there

Its more like there isn't anything that gets any better gas mileage so you may as well just get the big one. 2009 Honda Fit auto: 29-31 combined. 2009 Honda Civic Auto: 29 combined. Who gives a fuck? I'll drive around in a crackerbox to save gas but I'm not driving around in one so I can get 1mpg better then a bigger car.

I'm sure all our modern safety requirements and emissions crap have increased weight, but the horsepower increase is also part of it. What the hell is the point of a small car if it gets the same gas mileage as a bigger one? Don't say cost, the Fit is like 15K base. They should have just stuck a hatchback option on the civic and called it a day.

Its the same deal with other automakers. Hyundai Accent gets the same mileage as the elantra and it costs like $300 less. Whoop-de-shit! Chevy Aveo 28 combined. Chevy cobalt 27...Wow! What am I going to buy with all those dollars I saved on gas? I can go on, same for other makes.

As some one who'd actually be interested in these kind of cars I'm disappointed that the low end options offer no real financial incentive whether it be through fuel savings or upfront cost.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
The difficulty come from everything being computer/electronically controlled vs being mechanically controlled.

Lets use your example of a 1992 Civic vs a 2009 Civic.

The 1992 Civic is likely to still have a mechanical distributor vs the 2009s computer controlled coilpacks.
The 1992 probably didn't have variable valve timing, yet another computer controlled item.
The Automatic transmission in the 2009 will have computer controlled shift points, where the 1992 was all hydraulics.
See where this is all going.

But the computers bring efficiency and more power to a car that is heavier and quite a bit safer.
1992 Civic: 1.5ltr motor, 109hp, 98ftlbs torque, 30/36 milage, 2319 lbs curb weight.
2009 Civic: 1.8ltr, 140hp, 128ftlbs, 26/34, 2659

So in 17 years they managed to find a way to make a Civic get WORSE gas mileage?

consider that it has more power and torque, fewer emissions, and moving 300lbs more, the decrease isn't all that bad.

On top of the EPA scoring being adjusted to be much more restrictive.