Gordon Murray talks about how to build an efficient car

[Ashley Page]

What Murray is talking about sounds somewhat like a 356.

Interesting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7387432.stm

[Deborah King]

Not sure what you're referring to--the article I read talks in generalities. He does make a point, though, that I've often felt myself--junking cars, or planned obsolescence is one of the worst problems we face. Every time we throw something away, we give up the materials used to make it and transport it. That's in addition to the obvious problem of the junkyards and landfills required.

I love going to Europe, though it often makes me mad at the U.S.A. They've got the lock on fuel efficient designs--lots of diesels, too. I'm particularly fond of the MINI Cooper, as some of you know, and there is a model we don't have (and may never). It's the "One Diesel." I'd love to drive it to see how it compares with my MCS.

[Ashley Page]

Paul Niewenhuis's take on it (below) at the end of the article seems to point to a car that reminded me of a 356 and it was the mental picture I had formed before I got to the end of the article. When I drive a 356 I think of it as more of a "basic means of getting from A to B" than a high performance sports car. Its refreshing, again, to have only whats necessary or about as close as it gets to that, given that it does have a cigarette lighter and for some a radio. Beyond that it pretty bare. The painted metal dash looking back at you reinforces that view.

I hope the idea catches on. I think he is on the right track.

"We must abandon the automotive excess that has led to many modern cars being more akin to mobile boudoirs or mobile offices than true driving machines or even basic means of getting from A to B," he says.

And he thinks that consumers could benefit, because a new generation of basic cars will be "more involving, more likeable and more fun to drive than the often over-specified, over-weight devices of today".

[Jim Breazeale]

[quote="Deborah King"]Not sure what you're referring to--the article I read talks in generalities. He does make a point, though, that I've often felt myself--junking cars, or planned obsolescence is one of the worst problems we face. Every time we throw something away, we give up the materials used to make it and transport it. That's in addition to the obvious problem of the junkyards and landfills required.

Deborah

"Junking cars" do you mean "Recycling"?. Recycling old cars means that we reuse the materials used to make the car in the first place. I am proud to say that I am a Licensed Auto Dismantler and my "Junkyard" provides recycled/reused parts (most that are not available anywhere else, least of which, from the original manufacturer) to Porsche owners at reasonable prices. We don't contribute to "Landfills", except for our old lunch bags. We recycle almost every material the goes into the manufacture of the automobile. The "Junkyard" industry has "recycled" more material than all the other "green" "Johnny come lately" businesses put together. We have been doing a great service to the environment long before the word "Recycling" was coined and it was the Politically correct thing to do. Planned obsolescence and "Junking cars" would be a huge problem if it weren't for "Junkyards". Trot down to your local Porsche dealer, Auto Parts store, etc and try and buy a window regulator or a 1000 other parts for your 356C. It ain't going to happen! You will have to call your friendly "Junkyard" for the part or just throw away your car for lack of parts. "
Junkyards" are not part of the "problem" but they are a valuable resource!

[Rich.Herzog]

True, of course, for older specialty cars actually made of metal.

Once upon a time, "Detroit Wonder Metal" meant cast iron. From about the mid-80's it meant plastic, usually thermoset or reaction-cured (i.e. not readily recyclable) plastic.

A 20-year old plastic part in a recycler's yard (talking about the typical American-line recycler's yard, not your facility, Jim...) will have been exposed to as much UV, ozone, and environmental pollutants as the part I'd be looking to replace.

The "big" problem isn't the niche and botique manufacturers, its the mass-market lower-middle part of the spectrum. There must be what - a million? - Accord/Camry/Nova cars made for every 911. And it seems like as many Sub-Urban / Exploder / Caravan vehicles and those have thousands of pounds of plastic parts.

When a 'newer' vehicle has a collision we'd once upon a time repair, the 10 or 12 airbags deploy (airbags and airbag controller 1-time use) and blow out all the glass. Add that cost to whatever happpened structurally and cosmetically and it makes no economic sense to try to repair. And for a leased vehicle? Not gonna happen. Not for the original buyer anyway. What happens to them after they're 'rehabilitated' on the salvage title may be a fate worse than simple destruction.

There's a market for recycled parts only when there is a financial (or emotional, as with our cars...) incentive to repair. Otherwise, it is not a candidate for recycled parts, it's another donor.

[Deborah King]

Not sure what you're referring to--the article I read talks in generalities. He does make a point, though, that I've often felt myself--junking cars, or planned obsolescence is one of the worst problems we face. Every time we throw something away, we give up the materials used to make it and transport it. That's in addition to the obvious problem of the junkyards and landfills required.

Deborah

"Junking cars" do you mean "Recycling"?. Recycling old cars means that we reuse the materials used to make the car in the first place. I am proud to say that I am a Licensed Auto Dismantler and my "Junkyard" provides recycled/reused parts (most that are not available anywhere else, least of which, from the original manufacturer) to Porsche owners at reasonable prices. We don't contribute to "Landfills", except for our old lunch bags. We recycle almost every material the goes into the manufacture of the automobile. The "Junkyard" industry has "recycled" more material than all the other "green" "Johnny come lately" businesses put together. We have been doing a great service to the environment long before the word "Recycling" was coined and it was the Politically correct thing to do. Planned obsolescence and "Junking cars" would be a huge problem if it weren't for "Junkyards". Trot down to your local Porsche dealer, Auto Parts store, etc and try and buy a window regulator or a 1000 other parts for your 356C. It ain't going to happen! You will have to call your friendly "Junkyard" for the part or just throw away your car for lack of parts. "
Junkyards" are not part of the "problem" but they are a valuable resource!

No, perhaps I didn't explain what I meant. Perhaps Rich has said it better, but I'll try to clarify. Every time we build a car we use resources, right? If a car isn't designed to be used for a number of years, they aren't kept. It IS possible to build cars for long-term use--we've seen that with our Porsches--but lots of them are designed to deteriorate quickly. And let's face it, the auto industry wants you to believe they're only good for a few years, and they're often poorly built as a result.

At any rate, we certainly need recyclers, auto dismantlers, or whatever you want to call them. The longer we can keep a car in use, either by good design or by using donor parts, the better--each car not built means more resources not used. And the savings reverberate all the way down the line, from the ore to the showroom!

Hope that explains it better, and I'm sorry for any misunderstandings.

[Craig Kenfield]

...It IS possible to build cars for long-term use--we've seen that with our Porsches--but lots of them are designed to deteriorate quickly. And let's face it, the auto industry wants you to believe they're only good for a few years, and they're often poorly built as a result.

At any rate, we certainly need recyclers, auto dismantlers, or whatever you want to call them. The longer we can keep a car in use, either by good design or by using donor parts, the better--each car not built means more resources not used. And the savings reverberate all the way down the line, from the ore to the showroom!

Nitpicking maybe, but to say that modern cars are "designed to deteriorate quickly" is at best misleading. Are they designed to meet a price and have an expected lifespan? Absolutely, But I've been doing development engineering for about 20 years now and I have yet to see one instance of anyone trying to come up with something that wears out faster. Aftermarket exhaust companies are hurting big time because factory exhausts don't rust out anymore. Car bodies don't rust as fast as they used to either. Engines run longer at higher output levels, with lower maintenance, and much lower emissions these days too. How does that equate to designing to deteriorate? Emissions systems need to be warrantied for 100,000 miles. Some powertrain warranties match that. Could they be made to last longer? Sure. Would people spend the extra money to buy the car that goes 200,000 miles with no major service over the cars available now? Doubtful.

I also don't know of any company that wants you to believe their cars are only good for a few years. That's not an ad campaign I see anyone buying off on... if you're saying that they want you to buy a new car every few years, yeah, that's true. No big shock that they're in it for the money. Was it Ford that used to advertise something like the percentage of F150's built over the last ten years that were still on the road? They want you to think the car will last forever. They also want you to think the new styling is something you can't live without. They want you to buy a new Fusion because you can simply tell your iPod which song to play, not because your current one is worn out at 50,000 miles.

People don't sell their three year old cars because they're used up. People for the most part buy new cars because they want a new car. To blame that on the quality of the car is a cop out. If you MUST blame the auto industry for that attitude, blame the marketing department, not the engineers.

You've mentioned that the 356 shows a car can be built for long term use. I take that to mean since there are still a lot of them on the road, they were obviously built better than other cars that aren't on the road anymore? Perhaps. Or maybe not. There are still a huge number of ~40 year old Mustangs running around out there too. I owned one. They were NOT built to be long term cars - they were inexpensive. Yet they're still out there. Why? Ok, the fact they built literally millions of them doesn't hurt. But there's more to it than that. They built a bajillion Pintos and Vegas too, but I rarely see those anymore. The difference is, people like Mustangs enough to take care of them. Longevity depends on a mindset at least as much as a design.

I'll agree with you that auto dismantlers are needed and that the best way to save energy in is to not build the new car to begin with. But the attitude that current cars are "designed to deteriorate quickly" is just plain wrong, and I don't mean to pick on you as it's a pretty popular mindset.

Were cars really built "better" in the "good old days"? I don't think so. People expect airbags, antilock brakes, five speed automatics, traction control, air conditioning, power windows, 80 hp/liter and 30 mpg out of entry level cars these days. And they want it for under $20k.

Then to top it off, they want everyone else to buy that entry level car so they have more room to park their Hummer at the mall. That is NOT the auto industry's fault.

But now I'm ranting... No flames intended in the preceding ramblings, I just don't see things as cut and dried when it comes to "quality" as some people do. Most of the vehicles being built today are amazing when subjectively compared to cars of yesteryear. But then, when talking about vintage cars, subjective evaluations miss the point, don't they? Vintage cars are about emotions. Enthusiasm. The vast majority of car owners are not enthusiasts. They want an appliance. A car is a commodity. They want price and features. They won't pay 15% more for a car that lasts twice as long since they're not going to own it that long anyway. Geez, the new Whizbang Gomover might come out with air conditioned rear seats next year and where would that leave them???

[Deborah King]

Hey, wait a minute--evidently I'll have to repeat Composition 101, because you're not understanding what I mean! Or rather, you're taking bits and pieces of what I DO say, and turning your arguments on them.

One more time: If we build a car we consume resources, right? Can we agree on that? And when we do that, there's an effect all the way down the line, from the borer required to mine the ore, to the truck required to transport the newly-built car. Right? Heck, even the gas the workers use to get to the mine or factory or dealer has to be considered every time a buyer puts his John Hancock on the dotted line. Can we agree on that, at least?

In past days there was a saying: "Use It up, Wear It Out, Make do, or Do Without." I haven't been able to find out definitively when it originated (at least the '30s), but I know that it was used during World War II, and it helped the country through a time of scarce resources. We don't have that problem any more; we have another one. We can no longer afford to live life as if it were an endless succession of disposable consumer goods.

You're right, Craig--cars ARE built better than before. You're right, they don't rust as easily as before (I once had a Fiat that rusted within the first year!), and you're right, less maintenance is done now than before (points? Who needs 'em, anymore?). That doesn't change the American psyche, though. There is still a barage of advertising every night on television, my neighbor still trades in his cars every couple of years, and leases are calculated on the basis of 36 months. SOMEONE'S buying all those cars, and SOMEONE'S driving them as if there were no tomorrow. I kept my last car 13 years, and people thought I was insane. Why not--it got me where I wanted to go, and it was fun doing so (BMW).

Are you taking the view that "global warming" is a crock? Or that "what's good for GM is good for the country?" I'm not. Neither are my kids.

THAT'S what I'm trying to say.

Now, there is the argument that we can't afford NOT to treat cars as disposable goods--that what's good for GM really IS good for the country. I disagree. I think we can put just as much money into alternative energy and improvements in things like infrastructure to support the economy. No, all of the workers in Detroit are going to be able to find work in Detroit. Just like Hubby and I had to do in '75, employees may have to relocate for better job opportunities. Right now "green energy" is the hot field. My headhunter son-in-law is specializing in that sector, in fact, with much success. There are so many other opportunities out there, too--relocation, retraining, or whatever will have to be some of the buzzwords for the coming century. We've simply spent too much of our time on consumerism! We as a country and we as a planet can't afford to do it any more. There will be enough consequences with Third World countries improving their circumstances as it is. America, who has a terrible record in this regard, has to help balance those countries with a decrease in waste.

Case in point, not car related, but I hope you'll get the idea. I recently bought a well-advertised ladies' razor. It came with nearly four (4) ounces of plastic wrapping. I don't mean the entire package was 4 ounces, and I'm not including the cardboard insert, nor the razor itself (which was also plastic, of course). Nope--the wrapping--the packaging--was nearly 4 ounces. That's absurd--obscene, in fact. The more I saw (and I couldn't see this when I bought it), the angrier I got. I wrote to the company (Gillette), who had actually posted on their website that they were environmentally aware, and used "minimal packaging."

NOW do you understand?

P.S. Right after I posted this there was a television ad about Greensburg, Kansas. This is the town that was totally destroyed by a tornado last year. They're rebuilding in a "green" way. It CAN be done.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/05/02/gree ... index.html

[Craig Kenfield]

Hey, wait a minute--evidently I'll have to repeat Composition 101, because you're not understanding what I mean! Or rather, you're taking bits and pieces of what I DO say, and turning your arguments on them.

I agreed with much of what you said, it was just those bits and pieces I took issue with.

Seriously though, I think I do agree with you on most of these things, it's the reasons on how we got to where we are now that we have differences.

BTW - funny you should mention points. A couple years ago I was talking to a younger guy who worked for, um, Rousch I think it was? Supposedly knew a bunch about computer models for engine simulation and yadda yadda yadda. But when I mentioned I had converted my '74 Ducati over to electronic ignition, he looked confused. "Converted it over from what" he asked? This led to me trying to explain what "points" were... I must be getting old!

[Deborah King]

Aren't we all! Getting old, that is...

[Guest]

Gordon Murry provides ideas.

In particular the one "So we're not just dealing with the emissions from the exhaust pipe" is a good one.
Consider the Toyota Prius, an apparently eco-friendly car:
The Nikkel for the batteries comes from Canada, are then shipped to Europe, refined, send to China, turned into some sort of fome then then built in the car in Japan.
In the long run and including the envorinmental cost of production, the Prius does more damage than those now critisised SUVs.

Just a thought, Martin

[Ashley Page]

Gordon Murry provides ideas.

In particular the one "So we're not just dealing with the emissions from the exhaust pipe" is a good one.
Consider the Toyota Prius, an apparently eco-friendly car:
The Nikkel for the batteries comes from Canada, are then shipped to Europe, refined, send to China, turned into some sort of fome then then built in the car in Japan.
In the long run and including the envorinmental cost of production, the Prius does more damage than those now critisised SUVs.

Just a thought, Martin

I found that interesting also. Last year Machine Design did an article comparing a hybrid (don't remember the brand) to a Hummer. The final result was that if you really care about the environment you would choose the Hummer. The article went from taking ore from the ground to recycling in the way that Murray wirtes.

[Deborah King]

Frustrating, isn't it? That just speaks to how juvenile the technology is. I hope it won't take much longer to reverse this. I hate driving behind a Hummer--I just wish the Super-Blasters (on the labels MINI sends out to cover the toggle switches) really worked!

[Guest]

Gordon Murry provides ideas.

In particular the one "So we're not just dealing with the emissions from the exhaust pipe" is a good one.
Consider the Toyota Prius, an apparently eco-friendly car:
The Nikkel for the batteries comes from Canada, are then shipped to Europe, refined, send to China, turned into some sort of fome then then built in the car in Japan.
In the long run and including the envorinmental cost of production, the Prius does more damage than those now critisised SUVs.

Just a thought, Martin

I found that interesting also. Last year Machine Design did an article comparing a hybrid (don't remember the brand) to a Hummer. The final result was that if you really care about the environment you would choose the Hummer. The article went from taking ore from the ground to recycling in the way that Murray wirtes.

And then consider a 356, still on the road after 40+ years after production ended.

Here in Germany, many cities imposed a city ban on old cars not meeting certain emission standards. Initial plans included vintage cars like the 356. Luckily, these plans were adjusted to feature an exemption for 30+year cars.

Speaking of hybrids:
You might want to watch the following Top Gear clip comparing an BMW M3 to a Prius:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PP6fe6i1vaY

Martin