In reply to pinchvalve and aircooled :
Those are perfect examples of what I'm talking about. They're less about the engineering, and more about the requirements and/or 'business' decisions.
In reply to pinchvalve and aircooled :
Those are perfect examples of what I'm talking about. They're less about the engineering, and more about the requirements and/or 'business' decisions.
Motojunky said:theruleslawyer said:confuZion3 said:$3,000 for a battery? That's cute. May I present to you: BMW's high pressure fuel pump. $15,022.37. What's BMW's slogan? Oh yeah. "We looked perfection in the eye, and perfection couldn't afford the fuel pump for its 7 series".
Jeez. you probably could have one custom machined for less.
Relax. It's on sale.
I found it cheaper, but not with free shipping.
But seriously, that's for a 20-22 year old luxury V-12 engine. If my company had to stock everything (or retool for a small run) for that age and rarity, you bet I'd be marking it up a lot. Especially if people are willing to pay for it. We still support our machines from 40 years ago, but it's not cheap.
As to the needlessly complicated car designs, I ran into that over the weekend, changing the headlight bulbs on the wife's Fusion. Not because they were out, just dimmed over time. It is a bumper-cover off, remove the headlight assemblies ordeal. And I'm sure others are worse. I think if the engineer had to do that once or twice, they would possibly package it a little differently. It wouldn't take much. I think about serviceability/longevity when designing things, but am often overruled by fabrication time or material constraints. Or the ever-present "that's how we've always done it".
And there is also the long-view profit model, where you might lose a little money on the initial sale, but replacement parts keep the business going long term. Cars are very much a service-for-profit industry. As DIY-ers, we have a different view than most. A $3k battery? That's more than a Challenge car. Most people don't think that way.
I'll shut up now, thanks for coming.
Lithium batteries are lighter, hold more energy, deliver more power, and last longer than lead-acid ones. There are many good engineering reasons for using one, especially in the world of "mild hybrids". The $3000 battery mentioned in the previous thread is apparently supposed to last 10-15 years -- yes it failed in much less but that is always a possibility with any component of any car.
As far as "needless" goes, people don't "need" a Porsche at all, so is it any different from any other component in the vehicle in that regard?
In reply to llysgennad :
And 2:1 odds says the engineer(s) responsible for that headlight packaging actually share your frustration.
theruleslawyer said:Driven5 said:Engineers work to meet the requirements they are given, and that work is just one thing informing the business decisions. In my experience, most 'bad engineering' is actually the result of bad requirements and/or business decisions... Neither of which the Engineers actually control.
Sometimes. Business folks aren't engineers they don't understand the implications of everything they ask. A good engineer will push back to understand the intent of the requirements. Some of the junior engineers I deal with will execute very literally on requirements and ignore the whole discussion around them and fail to bring up issues they discover in development. Luckily the seniors usually work to make sure the intent is followed rather than the letter and surface issues discovered in development. Otherwise you end up with a 100page requirements doc and spend a month of productive time on just the documentation. Ideally its a collaborative process where you can balance technical and business needs. Occasionally you have to push through bad decisions for business reasons. That's when its just out of their hands. Make the best solution you can and move on.
I'm navigating this at work right now.
Owner: I'm tired of *a supplier* that sells us *a certain implement.* Lets make our own, Mr. Asa, get on this and do these things different.
Me: sure thing boss.
Owner, couple weeks later: Mr Asa, look at this. Can we do something like this?
Me: which part(s)?
O: this and this, maybe with this.
M: yeah, I'll incorporate it into what I've got.
Repeat two or three times. Turn in final version.
O: oh, thats too wide here and opens up too much. It has to fit in this envelope.
Me, not having ever known that: huh?
I think I will keep my old 914. That's enough German technology for me.
I will let the rest of you guys make stupid payments and trade your car at the dealer every three years to keep making them richer if you wish. Most of the Porsche and Mercedes SUVs aren't even sports cars. My CRV does everything those expensive SUVs do without breaking down and requiring a $15,000 repair or trade for a newer more expensive one. More money left over to keep the old sports car running.
There are hopeful signs in the area of uncomplicating things. One is the new Slate truck. Another is tooling such as the gigapress.
In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
This may qualify as getting mired down in the minutia but three 5 year batteries would only be $900.
I have similar discussions with a friend who is a Honda motorcycle stalwart. They would do things on bikes that made a .2% improvement to that made no real world difference other than making it a pain to work on.
His reply would be with things like "but if you add up that .2% difference over a number of years it's 1/2 horsepower and that's enough to win by 5 inches"................to which I'd reply "that's not enough to make up for my crappy riding".
As I read more of the replies I get the feeling this is a philosophy for said companies.
Sometimes prices are supplier related as well. My e46 had a rotation rate sensor fail, at the time of the failure they were $1400. So I lived with the warning lights & kept an eye on prices, eventually they went down to $500, so I fixed the issue. Not as easy to do with a high pressure fuel pump, but the number of cars in service is probably pretty low as well
Toyman! said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
And from there, that complication trickles down to VW and Audi. BMW steals engineers from VAG and that complication spreads and becomes the national standard.
In my experience, BMW and even Mercedes complication is because they are afraid of adopting new technology.
So many things could have been simplified if they'd use CAN for more things when it was new. But no, they couldn't.
Caperix said:Sometimes prices are supplier related as well. My e46 had a rotation rate sensor fail, at the time of the failure they were $1400. So I lived with the warning lights & kept an eye on prices, eventually they went down to $500, so I fixed the issue. Not as easy to do with a high pressure fuel pump, but the number of cars in service is probably pretty low as well
Monroe (and only Monroe) makes the shocks and struts for my Volvo. They are specific to one 4 year window of a single option package because adjustable damping. They were the OE supplier and still make them 20 years later, but they make them in batches.
They may cost $400 each or $1100 each, it just depends on if supplies are low, or if they just whipped up a new batch and they are plentiful.
Mazda 13B parts are the same way. They make a run of parts to last for a time period, and pricing depends on if they have 500 or if they have 50 in stock.
This is the Way if you have weird unicorn parts. Watch pricing and pre-emptively buy when they are cheap.
Driven5 said:Engineers work to meet the requirements they are given, and that work is just one thing informing the business decisions. In my experience, most 'bad engineering' is actually the result of bad requirements and/or business decisions... Neither of which the Engineers actually control.
Part of the fun of going to Detroit region SCCA events is overhearing Big 3 engineers kvetching over the stupid stuff they have to do because marketing or styling wants a certain thing.
Like chassis engineers who wanted smaller wheels, and had to do a ton of extra development to meet NVH and chassis dynamics targets for the incredibly heavy rubberbands on gigantic wheels that enthusiasts were just going to discard anyway, for example.
Toyman! said:You mean vehicles the work past 125k. I just replaced a 125k mile VW with a 300k mile GM because the GM isn't going to leave me in traffic while it throws a temper tantrum.
I daily a BMW E39 with 230K miles on it that is tighter and drives better than most cars with half the miles. I will check back in at 300K 
Trent said:Toyman! said:You mean vehicles the work past 125k. I just replaced a 125k mile VW with a 300k mile GM because the GM isn't going to leave me in traffic while it throws a temper tantrum.
I daily a BMW E39 with 230K miles on it that is tighter and drives better than most cars with half the miles. I will check back in at 300K
Forged in Valhalla, by the hammer of Thor...
No timing chains, no secondary air injection, no electronic wastegate or variable geometry intake manifolding, CAN all the things so no redundant sensors or wiring, paint and undercoating that isn't Earl Scheib quality. No berking sliding calipers.
If Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged drove a car, it'd be a pre-Chinese Volvo.
Tom1200 said:I have similar discussions with a friend who is a Honda motorcycle stalwart. They would do things on bikes that made a .2% improvement to that made no real world difference other than making it a pain to work on.
.2% matters to government regulators in the form of things like CAFE. That means it matters to automakers, even if you and I don't care.
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:Tom1200 said:I have similar discussions with a friend who is a Honda motorcycle stalwart. They would do things on bikes that made a .2% improvement to that made no real world difference other than making it a pain to work on.
.2% matters to government regulators in the form of things like CAFE. That means it matters to automakers, even if you and I don't care.
See also: ease of assembly.
Making something easier to assemble on the line means more production for the same number of worker-hours. That means more money.
We had this discussion today regarding a broken lock carrier on a Passat. The radiator is hanging by the hoses because someone found a parking curb or something. "Why's it designed that way?"
Because on the assembly line, the lock carrier and cooling package goes on as an assembly, it's like eight bolts and cinch up some hoses and connectors and the radiator/condensor/intercooler is installed and the car moves along the line to the next guy.
It's a pain to replace just one single component in this assembly, but the vast majority of cars go to the grave with the parts the factory installed there, so who cares?
In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
To clarify we were taking about 80s bikes. I should have stated that.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
I actually understand as I was in manufacturing for years.
The engineers at the company I was at the longest designed the slot machine so that it only used two types of fastners. The only reason there were two types is becuase the doors on a slot machine are rather heavy so they needs bigger screws.
There were numerous spots were the screws for sub assemblies were 4-5mm longer than they needed to be but other than cosmetics it didn't matter.
"Hey, DM, why do you always drive those old piles of crap?"
Reasons...
When I had to swap a door on my E36 M3, and had to deal with the world's most retarded door handle design, it was the beginning of the end for me and European cars. Let's not even talk about VW/Audi's "service position" to do almost anything on their plastic-laded turds.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:Toyman! said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
And from there, that complication trickles down to VW and Audi. BMW steals engineers from VAG and that complication spreads and becomes the national standard.
In my experience, BMW and even Mercedes complication is because they are afraid of adopting new technology.
So many things could have been simplified if they'd use CAN for more things when it was new. But no, they couldn't.
I truly believe Bosch used Volvo a the red headed step child back in the 140/240 days. First cars with Djetronic? Volvo. First car with Kjetronic? Volvo First car with LHjetronuc? Volvo.
Volkswagen generally came shortly after, and Mercedes eventually came along, kicking and screaming, "No! If we add enough electronic bodges, this Kjetronic will work just great!"
The only system Volvo didn't get is the one with the big air flow meter. Ljet? That was BMW and the Japanese territory.
Trent said:Toyman! said:You mean vehicles the work past 125k. I just replaced a 125k mile VW with a 300k mile GM because the GM isn't going to leave me in traffic while it throws a temper tantrum.
I daily a BMW E39 with 230K miles on it that is tighter and drives better than most cars with half the miles. I will check back in at 300K
The last E39 was made 21 years ago. I see far more Chevys of that vintage on the road than BMWs of that age.
racerfink said:Trent said:Toyman! said:You mean vehicles the work past 125k. I just replaced a 125k mile VW with a 300k mile GM because the GM isn't going to leave me in traffic while it throws a temper tantrum.
I daily a BMW E39 with 230K miles on it that is tighter and drives better than most cars with half the miles. I will check back in at 300K
The last E39 was made 21 years ago. I see far more Chevys of that vintage on the road than BMWs of that age.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest there were far more Chevy's sold of that vintage than BMWs.
In reply to Streetwiseguy :
I thought the ACVW was first with D jet.
Either way, D jet was basically Bendix's timed fuel injection from 1958 and K-jet was an evolution of Rochester mechanical injection from 1957 
The neat thing about K jet was that it was so smooth and reliable (and expensive to manufacture) that it was marketed as an upscale fuel injection system. I don't know when Mercedes stopped using it (it was in the 90s, in their V8 cars, for sure) but Porsche kept with it until 1994 on the turbo Carreras.
Extra weird is that I'd only ever seen one D-jet car in the wild, and it was a 70s Mercedes V8. It needed the manifold pressure sensor, and judging by its size and incredible expense it had to be a Bourdon tube scribing across a resistor block, like sticking a TPS on the needle of a boost gauge.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
It's hard to differentiate between actual progress and gratuitous complication, or change for its own sake. Progress is good, but I have a philosophical objection to the other two, and that, along with generally operating on a zero dollar budget, makes it hard to trust new things.
Things do change. The take rate on fuel injection in '57 and '58 was tiny, and not that many years later, it was standard equipment on ordinary passenger cars. It's interesting, in maybe the same way that a good deal on pillowcases is interesting (who wants to hear a story about a bridge?) and makes me think I'm the lone holdout clinging to the past out of fear and distrust while the world marches happily forward into a better, brighter future.
You'll need to log in to post.
