Detroit auto makers try some new tricks

"Edwin Pawlowski" ...

You mean you have to pay extra just to SELL certain cars?

Wouldn't that make the dealer hesitate on any new concepts/prototypes? I
would think that would make distribution that much tougher for the
manufacturer.

Essentially, that's saying, "We don't even know if people will buy these,
but we're going to charge *you* to find out."



Natalie

 

They had to have a journeyman mechanic or two on staff take the Opel
training on the different systems in those cars so they could repair
them quickly and competently. And if the training courses weren't
offered at the regional office, they might have to fly them to Detroit
or Europe for a week or two, lodging and per diem.

And the Parts Department had to stock an assortment of the different
Opel spare parts so the cars that they sold could be serviced in a
prompt manner - no customer cars sitting idle for days just to get in
simple items like a filter or thermostat.

And they had to buy any Special Service Tools that weren't already
at the dealership - oddball socket wrenches, special jack cradles to
remove and install transmissions and engines, and such like.

Between all that, it could easily add up to more than $50K in
start-up costs. And if you aren't ready to service them we won't let
you sell them - all part of being a car dealer.

--<< Bruce >>--

 

The whole idea with newer cars is to have a rigid cage structure
around the passenger compartment, and crumple zones at the end. They
even put nice accordion pleat starter grooves on the frame stubs so
the fold patterns are pre-ordained.

Crumpling at the ends will cause the car to be totaled easier, but
it soaks up all that energy a lot easier than the passenger bodies.

Bodies can't soak up nearly the energy that the car body can, the
internal organs simply can't handle the sudden stop - Ascending Aorta
Aneurysm, Anyone?

The car can fold in at the ends like an accordion, as long as the
engine and transmission go down and out of the way and not shoved into
the passenger compartment.

Same thing with the foot box, they try to keep the pedals and the
steering column from being displaced into the driver, they will rig
the crash to bend the steering column & wheel up and out.

Old cars will follow the same basic 'compartment and crumple' model,
but they really weren't computer designed scientifically to do it so
the results vary wildly.

--<< Bruce >>--

 

If she was buckled in properly, maybe. But I would NOT bet on it.

Don't recall the episode, but if it was a Big Ol' 50's Chrysler Boat
Vs. an Inner-city Bus, the Chrysler could soak up enough of the hit to
bounce off.

Just look what happens with a car Vs a Light Rail trolley car - the
car looks like bug-splat on the windshield, and the train gets off
with minor damage. Full freight locomotives sometimes come out of the
wreck without hardly a scratch - it bends the front coupler...

Buses and Semis are only one notch down on the Vehicular Mass scale,
a small car is either bouncing off or going under.

--<< Bruce >>--

 

You're kidding, right?[/QUOTE]

Nope.

 

I had one...amazing in some ways, typical GM ridiculousness in others.

The 215 in the Olds variant ran 10.5:1 compression, and when they
slapped the Monza turbo and Rochester H Monza carb on it, they didn't
decrease the CR at all...thus the need for the "fluid injection"
system that worked very well...if and when it worked. Vapor injection
had been around in aircraft piston engines since the late '30s as a
method of preventing detonation at high CRs that tetraethyl lead
couldn't completely eliminate at the time. When the vapor injection
system on the Jetfire worked, it worked pretty well indeed. When it
didn't, you were looking at serious engine damage if you ran the boost
on a dry day with no injection.

Another problem with the Jetfire was the "Slim Jim" Roto HydraMatic
transmission, an attempt by GM corporate to come up with a cheaper
alternative to the four speed Dual Coupling HydraMatic for its
Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles. Buick had their own "slush boxes" going at
the time. The Roto and "Slim Jim" eliminated 2nd gear, replacing it
with a "torque multiplier" in the fluid coupling, making it an ersatz
torque converter. The theory was that the multiplier would eliminate
the need for the 2nd gear. In reality it provided a VERY slushy and
low 1st gear with a HUGE ratio drop to what became 2nd (3rd on the
real HydraMatics). Cars so equipped would have all kinds of torque
and acceleration until the shift point, and then bog down. The Roto
went away, along with the expensive but better HydraMatic, in 1965,
replaced by the perennial favorite, the THM 400, which was cheaper to
produce than even the Roto.

The Jetfire wrung 215 BHP out of 215 cu. in. and was a real screamer
off the line...until you hit the first shift point, anyway. Keeping
the injection system working properly was a normal weekend chore, with
miles of vacuum lines and the like giving lots of trouble. I used to
run cheap vodka and water in mine sometimes, which allowed even more
head room against detonation. Most turbo equipped Jetfires from '61
through '64 would go away, made into simple 4 bbl. 215s for free by
the Olds dealers under a special warranty from the factory. Thus, a
working turbo equipped Jetfire is quite valuable.

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/9523/road-test-opel-kadett-l-station-wagon.html

 

Wickeddoll® wrote:

The short answer is that they're DESIGNED to crumple in order to
dissipate energy in crashes, which is why cars are safer today (much
more of a real impact on saftey than airbags, IMO. I think they've gone
way too far, though, when a 5 mph "oops" with a pole can tear up an
entire bumper cover. But that's not really a problem with the energy
absorption philosophy as much as it is with the implemenation. By the
way, "crush zone" design really started way back in the 50s. Steering
wheels were changed so that the center shaft wouldn't spear you in the
chest, then steering columns were made collapsible (68 model year),
drivetrains were made so that the engine/transmission would slide down
under the passenger compartment rather than punch into it, door beams
for side impact protection were mandated (circa 1973) etc. etc. etc. To
read some commentary, you'd think that collision safety applied to
chassis design appeared out of whole cloth in the 90s, but that's not
true at all. Truth be told, a 1973 autmobile has all of the *most
effective* features that a current car has. IMO its sort of an 80/20
rule- 80% of the survivability improvements came with the first 20% of
design effort. All the complex stuff- self-retracting belts, air bombs,
side-curtain air bombs, etc. really don't add much on top of that EXCEPT
for the persistent idiots who won't wear their shoulder belts.

 

I hope he's kidding about not forgetting it. I REALLY want to forget it.

And yes, it was based on an Opel....

 

Or Al in Married with Children. "The Dodge cut through that kraut car
like butter..."

 

"Bruce L. Bergman"

No wonder they try so hard to sell prototypes....

Natalie

 

"Bruce L. Bergman"
"Wickeddoll®"
wrote:

She was the type of character who would be buckled in - she was very
straight-laced.

It was a 50s model, I'm pretty sure.

Submarining anyone?

Natalie

 

So I've heard.

Natalie

 

"Lloyd"
"Wickeddoll®"

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/9523/road-test-opel-kadett-l-station-wagon.html


Thanks!

Natalie

 

"Steve" ..

Thanks - the no seat belt/no helmet types just do not get it.

Natalie

 

"Steve" ...

LOL that bad, huh.

Natalie

 

LOL
Al Bundy (looking at a very beautiful blonde): "Let's see the Japanese make
a better one of those!"

 

There's a Pontiac Fiero at the local tow yard today.
He was sitting in a left turn lane when someone coming the other way at 80+
thought his left turn lane looked like a good passing lane.

Nailed the Fiero, not directly head on, spun it around a few times. Most
of the plastic stuff disappeared or was shredded. No engine in the front,
so there's not much left of the front, but the driver opened the door and
got out. The passenger compartment isn't even distorted much.

One of the local volunteer fire department guys has been hauling people out
of crashed cars for decades. He said they used to be dead, then head
injuries, then upper torso, now crushed ankles, as the decades go by.

Unibody cars tend to fold up if the passenger compartment distorts, with
the dash and under-components trapping and crushing the feet and ankles.

 

The funniest thing is that the C&D road tests are _still_ just as bad as
the one in the link above. They haven't changed a bit in all those
years.

 

<> ...
Bruce L. Bergman wrote:

That reminds me of this case:

http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=254166

Soiled underwear, anyone?

Natalie