# Who Killed the Electric Car? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 25, 2006, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065 "2006-06-25T08:45:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2006, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/61 "2006-06-28T08:02:10Z")
> [@Rick](#): > > yes jackass that is what I am telling you, the mounting points on the block are different. That’s it? _Just_ the mounting points? If people can shoehorn 350 Chevy engines and trannys in Jags, I’d think that it’d be a simple matter to solve. > [@](#): > > Well except for the fact the engine computers are completely different So you’re telling me that even though Apple, the Linux community, and Microsoft have _all_ come up with operating systems that can easily identify things like processor, motherboard, sound card, video card, monitor, etc., etc, etc., etc., that Volvo (or any other car maker, for that matter) _couldn’t_ come up with a “universal” engine computer (universal in the sense that the Volvo unit would recognize all post-2007 Volvo engines) that would be able to recognize the displacement of the engine, sensors, etc. and choose the appropriate operating settings? Now, who’s calling people “stupid?” > [@](#): > > the sensors are completely different, Is this an engineering _necessity_ (say the engine in the SUV is in a hotter environment than the sedan, and thus has to be expected to perform under harsher conditions[though I have to ask why you couldn’t simply use the SUV sensors in the sedan])? Or is it done for some other reason? > [@](#): > > the fuel line connections are completely different, Again, is this done out of engineering necessity, or because they were designed by different groups within Volvo? > [@](#): > > the high speed data network is completely different, the air filter and intakes are completely different Yet, again, is this an engineering necessity and if so, why? > [@](#): > > , the transmission is completely different, Not too terribly surprising, but I’d think that it’d be a simple matter to have the mount points be the same (after all, the only difference between the 727 tranny in the Jeep I used to own, and the one in my Chrysler is the bolt pattern on the bell housing) and, again, I think it should be possible to have a computer know the difference and be able to handle it. After all, my PC doesn’t flake out every time I hook a new digital camera up to it. > [@](#): > > the exhaust is completely different, So long as the exhaust manifolds are the same, I don’t see the problem. After all, what’s it matter to the engine if the tailpipe exits on the left side or the right side of the vehicle? > [@](#): > > the sub frame that mounts the engine is complete different Again, doesn’t sound like an insurmountable problem to me. Simply use the same subframe and mount points on all future models. > [@](#): > > and in the case of a 2WD 5 cylinder the rear axle and fuel tank are different. And this relates to the engine, _how?_ > [@](#): > > Oh, and the all wheel drive coupling, control unit for the same, and wiring harness for the AWD control unit would have to be added, Gee, I don’t have to resolder my PC just to add a new printer, if they can do it, why can’t car makers? > [@](#): > > and you will also need a drive shaft. What for? Are you telling me that the frontal drive shaft for the Vovlo SUV is mounted to the _engine_ and that it is mounted in such a way that it _cannot_ be removed, _ever?_ > [@](#): > > Did I mention that due to the weight difference the spring and shocks are also different? So, using something like an adaptive suspension, which could recognize the different weight (and weight balance) and make adjustments is impossible? > [@](#): > > Other than that I can’t think of a single reason why this would not work. :dubious: Yourself. :wally Think harder. > [@](#): > > Just the engine wiring harness, and flex lines to the on car hard lines. Which come to think of it are all ready a quick disconnect of a sort. Which ones? The wiring or the hard lines? I’ve seen quick connect wiring on cars, but _never_ quick connect hard lines on a factory correct car. > [@](#): > > No I never said that. But not all of the engines are common. S40’s (old version and new version) have three engines that are not same as any other models. S80’s used to have a normally aspirated 6 cylinder that was not shared with any other car. That strikes me as being unnecessary, sort of like how GM has different engines for every division, while, Ford’s, Chrysler’s, Toyota’s, Honda’s, and Nissan’s (to name but a few) all share the same engines (with one or two exceptions here and there) across all divisions. > [@](#): > > Feel free to start your own car company. I am guessing that my company probably knows just a tad bit more about inventory control than you do. Possibly, but you don’t really know me, and I don’t really know Volvo, so neither of us can say for certain. But surely you’ve ran into situations where you’ve wondered why the _fuck_ they did something the way they did? > [@](#): > > Furthermore, while many of these castings are the same from model to model, during the computerized machining process for one car a hole may be drilled and tapped, for another it may be left out, or the hole is located somewhere else. So we do get the economy of scale, and different engines. Let’s look at this a little more closely, shall we? Let’s say that adding that extra hole costs Volvo $0.10 per engine. (Not an unreasonable amount, I’d say, probably a tad low, but it’s a nice round number to work with, and I doubt that either of us have access to the necessary data to compute the actual cost.) Further more, let’s say that Volvo builds 1 million of those engines a year with that extra hole (I’m sure nowhere close to the actual number, but it’s a good round number, and certainly not outside the realm of possibility.), so the total cost to Volvo for that is $100K a year. Admittedly peanuts to a multi-billion dollar a year company like Volvo, however, both GM and Chrysler have embarked on projects to shave less than that off the price of components used in their vehicles. Get enough of those savings together and pretty soon you’re talking real money. > [@](#): > > As I stated before we replace about 1 engine per month under warranty. 400 dealers @ 4 engines each is 1600 engines. Each year about 12 of them would get used. That leaves you 1588 gathering dust. And you are telling me my company does not know how to manage inventory? :eek: How often to do you have to repair the intake on an engine within a given month? Oil pump? Rebuild an engine? I assume that if a customer cracks the head on his engine, you don’t simply replace the whole engine. Am I right? Or is it standard proceedure at Volvo to replace the entire engine whenever there’s a minor problem with it? > [@](#): > > Some sense? If a customer has bad brakes, offering them a rental engine makes no sense, offering them a loan car does. If you can’t see that, you are a grade A idiot. Who said _anything_ about offering them a rental engine in such a situation? > [@](#): > > Ah, just a quick reminder I am a master automotive technician, I haven’t forgotten, and you’re also hurling personal insults when I’ve not done the same when you’ve disagreed with me. > [@](#): > > and I teach professional technicians for a living. I talk to them every day. None of them that I can think of would be in favor of such an idea. Have you _asked_ them? > [@](#): > > Yes they are, I agree. But when talking about everyday driver cars over and over again you brag about just how great the Tucker was, and how it is better than car X. And you _never_ praise Volvo? And you’ve _never_ seen me talk about how much I like my Chrysler or the Hondas I’ve owned? If not, you’re not paying attention. I’ve also praised some of the new Chrysler models, heck, I like AMCs, Packards, Studebakers, Nashes, Hudsons, and some of the new Hondas. > [@](#): > > Dude wake up and smell the motor oil. For its time the Tucker was pretty cool. For its time. Its time was almost 60 years ago. And many of the features available on the Tucker _aren’t_ available on cars today. Most cars _don’t_ have lights that turn with the wheels. > [@](#): > > Technology marches on. No shit, but good engineering is timeless. If it weren’t we’d have to raze buildings to the ground every couple of years. But apparently, you missed my thread on Tuckers where I discussed some of the engineering problems with the cars (pop out windshield, transmission, and weight balance), otherwise you’d know that I _do_ realize that there _are_ problems with parts of the design of the car. Let me show you some things about the car that I’ve learned since I wrote that thread, so you’ll understand that I don’t think the cars were perfect. [This is one of the fenders of the Tucker.](http://usera.imagecave.com/tuckerfan/fender01.JPG) As you can tell, it’s a large, wrap around design. And as [this photo illustrates](http://usera.imagecave.com/tuckerfan/brain1.jpg), the front end is actually made up of both fenders. There is no center section as there is on every other car. (What’s _not_ visible in either photograph is that the fenders are actually comprised of seperate sections that are welded together to make each fender. Bet _that_ was expensive.) This means, that if the car takes a moderate hit in the left front fender, there’s a good chance that the _right_ front fender will be damaged as well (since they’re bolted together at the nose.) I don’t know of any other car where that’s an issue. Now, let’s move on to more complicated things. [Here’s a shot of the engine in the car.](http://usera.imagecave.com/tuckerfan/engine02.JPG) As you know, the engine is a converted helicopter engine. The helicopter engine was air cooled, for reasons known only to Tucker, he had them put a water jacket on the engine before they used them in the cars. If you take a look at the bottom of [this picture](http://usera.imagecave.com/tuckerfan/engine03a.JPG), near the end of the alternator, you can see what looks to be _dozens_ of nuts lining the water jacket. Each and every one of those would have to be painstakingly removed in order to a complete rebuild of the engine. What a PITA that must have been, eh? Surely there’s a better way they could have done it? > [@](#): > > Back in the day if you got 1 HP/ cubic inch you have a high performance car. I have a station wagon parked out back that gets just a hair less than 2 HP per cubic inch, and it meets 2007 smog regulations. And your point is? Jay Leno’s got a 1930s steam car that meets modern California emissions, and it’s all original. > [@](#): > > Missed the part about the emission controls did you? Nope. Back in 1986, I owned a 1971 Newport, same engine, transmission, and much _lower_ mileage on the clock than the 69 I own, and it got roughly the same MPG. It also had newer emission controls. No idea of what the emissions output of the Tucker was, didn’t get the chance to put it through any testing when I was working on one. Be interesting to find out, though. > [@](#): > > Well by that rather convoluted line of reasoning I guess a Jeep liberty is a Kaiser. Who knew? According to this [site](http://info.detnews.com/joyrides/story/index.cfm?id=88), the Kaiser’s last year of production was 1955. And according to [this site](http://www.answers.com/topic/kaiser-frazer-corporation), Kaiser **started** production in Argentina in 1956. > [@](#): > > Groundbreaking for the new factory was in March of 1955 with the first Jeep vehicle rolling out of the plant on 27 April 1956. > > The new Argentine factory was built in the city of Santa Isabel in the province of Córdoba with the Kaiser Manhattan being rechristened the Kaiser Carabela — named after a type of Spanish sailing ship. The USA vinyl and fabric interior was replaced with a more rugged leather interior, the speedometer was recalibrated in kilometers with the temperature, oil, and fuel gauge annotations in Spanish and the spring rates were increased to accommodate the unimproved Argentine roads. Oddly, the dash castings with annotations for vent, heater, headlight and wiper controls remained in English. No consideration was given to offering an automatic transmission due to the anticipated difficulty in obtaining service in remote towns. Production started on the Carabela on 25 July 1958 and, in the remaining months of year, 2,158 cars were built. IKA was also building Jeep vehicles at the Cordoba factory and assembled 20,454 Jeeps in 1958 alone. > [@](#): > > In 1962 the Carabela, the “Gran coche argentino” (the Great Argentine Car), ended production with some 15,000 cars assembled providing elegant transportation for the doctors, bankers and other notables in Argentina. I haven’t had time to dig up the info on their Israeli operation, so in the meantime [here’s what I’ve been able to find in a quick google flog.](http://forums.autoweek.com/thread.jspa?forumID=9&threadID=12911&messageID=378662) > [@](#): > > Does anyone know something about The Kaiser Ilin that was assembled in Israel (Haifa). It actually is a Hino Contessa. I think that they used the former Kaiser Frazer plant. (Hino was renamed to Kaiser in Israel) > But i am not sure. These cars were build around 1966. I know that Autocars took over the Kaiser plant and collaborated with Leyland Triumph. It’s a bit confusing. Does anyone know the exact history or does anyone have pictures of the plant? > > Peter van den Hoogen Not much, I’ll admit, but it’s a start if you want to dig on your own. > [@](#): > > The hole you are in is getting pretty deep, do you want to stop digging now, or are you going to keep shoveling away? Hole? What hole? You’re the one who started the absurdist statements, not me. You’re the one who launched into the attack on automobiles in this thread. I even defended GM’s decision to scrap the EVs (nor did I say that the EVs were lousy cars), which if one were to believe your comments that I thought _only_ Tuckers were decent cars would be impossible for me to do. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2006, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/62 "2006-06-28T08:20:21Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#): > > Also I was watching Thomas Friedman’s report on energy last week and he interviewed a physicist who said we could triple fuel economy by replacing steel with carbon fiber which is just as durable but much ligher, which would double it, then make the cars hybrid which would triple it. We’d have a world of 70mpg cars and we already have the technology to do it. We have the technology now for plug in hybrids and carbon fiber cars which, if everpresent would cut car energy usage down dramatically, probably by 80%. Problem with carbon fiber is that it’s _expensive_. You’d wind up with a car that few people could afford to buy. Carbon fiber manufacture also involves some pretty nasty chemicals, which can create severe environmental problems (so we’d be trading air pollution for soil and water pollution). Still, I don’t see why aluminum isn’t used more often in cars. It’s nearly as strong as steel (it’s weaknesses can be compensated for with good engineering, just like we’d have to do with carbon fiber) and lighter than steel. Fiberglas and the plastic that GM used to make Saturns out of are other possibilities. Further down the road, we might be able to do something with carbon nanotubes, but I’m not sure if that wouldn’t involve using some of the same nasty chemicals used to make carbon fiber. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2006, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/63 "2006-06-28T11:48:38Z")
I don’t have much time right now to explain just how dumb some of the rest of your comments are, but this one I just have to address > [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Have you asked them? From out of my e mail inbox this AM > [@](#): > > That thread is too funny! … > Tucker is a dope and wouldn’t last a day in the real world of car repair. This come from one of the best technicians I have ever met in over 30 years in this business. So to answer your question, yes I have. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2006, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/64 "2006-06-28T12:40:39Z")
> [@Rick](#): > > I don’t have much time right now to explain just how dumb some of the rest of your comments are, but this one I just have to address I’m waiting with baited breath for when you do have time. > [@](#): > > From out of my e mail inbox this AM > This come from one of the best technicians I have ever met in over 30 years in this business. > So to answer your question, yes I have. Of course, we only have your word on any of this. ---
**Author:** ![Leviosaurus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/439d5e/32.png) [@Leviosaurus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leviosaurus)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2006, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/65 "2006-06-28T16:55:21Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Let’s see… Debating sports teams is okay, debating video games is okay, debating just about every other freaking thing on this board is okay, but if we talk about cars, it’s all about who has a ‘bigger dick’. Is that it? > > You may find this hard to believe, but some of us actually LIKE talking about cars. We like engineering. We like debating technological tradeoffs. If you don’t, fine. Don’t take part in the discussion. Otherwise, why don’t you take your smug attitude and cram it? Wow, sorry dude! I didn’t realize that there were people on this board who didn’t understand sarcasm! It never occurred to me that when SDMBers get into big deathmatch pick-your-post-apart-sentence-by-sentence threads about sports or video games, they might not get made fun of as much as people who talk about cars! You’re absolutely right to be so sensitive! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2006, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/66 "2006-06-28T17:07:53Z")
> [@Leviosaurus](#): > > Wow, sorry dude! I didn’t realize that there were people on this board who didn’t understand sarcasm! … I understood it and I thought your post was a welcome interlude of humor. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/67 "2006-06-29T07:33:26Z")
Before we get started all me to share **Rick’s Cardinal rule of Car making** The way to make a million dollars in the car business is simple. Save a dollar a car and build a million of them. This applies to so much of what follows, I am going to refer to it as RCR so save me some typing. > [@Tuckerfan](#): > > That’s it? _Just_ the mounting points? If people can shoehorn 350 Chevy engines and trannys in Jags, I’d think that it’d be a simple matter to solve. See RCR above, if you don’t drill and tap a hole and it save you $0.10 you are that much ahead. Drilling and tapping unnecessary holes costs you profit. > [@](#): > > So you’re telling me that even though Apple, the Linux community, and Microsoft have _all_ come up with operating systems that can easily identify things like processor, motherboard, sound card, video card, monitor, etc., etc, etc., etc., that Volvo (or any other car maker, for that matter) _couldn’t_ come up with a “universal” engine computer (universal in the sense that the Volvo unit would recognize all post-2007 Volvo engines) that would be able to recognize the displacement of the engine, sensors, etc. and choose the appropriate operating settings? Nice apples to hand grenades comparison there Sparky. First off our customers do not add video cars or sound cards or any of that shit to our networks. Secondly, the computers system used on the 5 and six cylinder engines were designed in the mid 1990s. This is before Ford bought Volvo, and before a V8 was even a thought. Now about the specific differences. The 5 and 6 cylinder systems are Bosch, and the V8 fuel system is from Denso. The 5 and 6 cylinder systems used a 250 KBS network speed, the V8 to comply with the federal regulations that come in with the 2006 Model year uses a 500KB network speed. Lastly despite the some what misleading names the 5 cylinder has five spark plugs and five injectors. The V8 has 8 of each. The 5 cylinder engines has two camshafts with either one or two cam position sensors. And one or two camshaft reset valves for cam timing. The V8 has four cams with four cam sensors. And you guessed it four camshaft reset valves. So if I understand your pitting here, you are complaining that our engineers in the mid 90’s did not have a good enough crystal ball to for see that we were going to be bought by Ford, have a V8 engine and that the Federal government was going to require a communication protocol that did not even exist at the time they were designing the fuel system. Need I mention that hindsight is always 20/20? > [@](#): > > Now, who’s calling people “stupid?” That would be me calling you stupid for expecting our engineers to be able to foresee the future. > [@](#): > > Is this an engineering _necessity_ (say the engine in the SUV is in a hotter environment than the sedan, and thus has to be expected to perform under harsher conditions[though I have to ask why you couldn’t simply use the SUV sensors in the sedan])? Or is it done for some other reason? Again there are 8 spark plugs on a V8 and only 5 or 6 on the Bosch system. The idle might be just a tad rough if we didn’t fire those last 2 or 3 plugs don’t you think? What about the extra two camshaft resest valves? and the extra two or three cam position sensors? Just leave them dangle? > [@](#): > > Again, is this done out of engineering necessity, or because they were designed by different groups within Volvo? I know that this may come as a shock to you, but a 4.4L V8 tends to use just a tad more gas than a 2.4L 5 cylinder. That requires a larger fuel line. Also since the engines are different the physical location of where the fuel line enters the engine compartment is different. Could it be changed, sure, but it would violate RCR. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > the high speed data network is completely different, the air filter and intakes are completely different > > Yet, again, is this an engineering necessity and if so, why? :smack: Are you trying for the troll of the month award, or have you never looked under the hood of a car? A five cylinder engine has the intake on one side, a V8 has it in the middle. Our 5 cylinder engines have a turbo mounted behind the engine on the exhaust side. The V8 has exhausts on both sides. If it is possible to reuse parts from one version to another we do to keep up with RCR. However when there is a large piece of metal where you used to have an air filter, you have to move it. As far as the data network goes, the V8 meets the '06 federal requirements from start of production, the '03 and '04 5 and 6 cylinders do not. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > the high speed data network is completely different, the air filter and intakes are completely different > > Not too terribly surprising, but I’d think that it’d be a simple matter to have the mount points be the same (after all, the only difference between the 727 tranny in the Jeep I used to own, and the one in my Chrysler is the bolt pattern on the bell housing) and, again, I think it should be possible to have a computer know the difference and be able to handle it. After all, my PC doesn’t flake out every time I hook a new digital camera up to it. Oh I love this one… We use one trans for the 5 cylinder engines, one for the 6 cylinders, and a different one for the V8. Why? Well first off the starter on the V9 mounts on the top of the trans and engages the bell housing from the rear. So if we did figure out how to bolt the 5 cylinder trans (like you suggested in post #55) the customer would have no way to start the car. :smack: Next we get into why do we use 3 different trannys? Well in order to keep up with RCR low powered cars use a smaller lighter transmission than a heavy powerful car. This is true for all car companies. A pinto trans was smaller and lighter than a Boss 429’s trans. Let’s look at the implications of this. Let’s climb into our way back machine and set it for 1968. Let’s further say that your suggestion from post #55 (drop a V8 loaner into any car needing an engine has been adopted by Chrysler) A customer comes in with a Dodge Dart slant 6 220CI engine that is blown up (Just how the customer managed to blow up the most bullet proof engine Chrysler ever built will be left as an exercise for the reader) So following your advise the mechanic drops in a 426 dual quad hemi (again getting the damn thing to fit will be left as an exercise for the reader). Now just how long do you think that trans designed for a slant six is going to live with a hemi in front of it? 5 minutes, or do you think it might make it 10? Or do you think the driveshaft u-joints are going to explode first? Getting back to reality here, the trans for both the 5 and 6 cylinder engines are not strong enough to live behind the V8 engine. Now before you hit replay and start to say "put the V8 trans in everything re-read the RCR statement at the top of this post. > [@](#): > > So long as the exhaust manifolds are the same, I don’t see the problem. After all, what’s it matter to the engine if the tailpipe exits on the left side or the right side of the vehicle? ::: Bangs head on table::: 5 cylinder = one exhaust manifold on ONE side of the engine. V8’s = TWO exhaust manifolds one on the front of the engine and one on the back. The exhaust pipes exit the car in the same place, it is hooking them up that is the hard part. Finally did you stop to think that a 4.4L V8 just might produce more exhaust than a 2.5L 5 cylinder? > [@](#): > > Again, doesn’t sound like an insurmountable problem to me. Simply use the same subframe and mount points on all future models. to use the heavier subframe on all models violates RCR. Thanks for playing. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > and in the case of a 2WD 5 cylinder the rear axle and fuel tank are different > > And this relates to the engine, _how?_ Mainly because the 6 speed trans for the V8 (the only one that will work, if you have been paying attention) is an all wheel drive unit and a 2WD drive car is not set up for all wheel drive. So yeah it does matter. [quote] > [@](#): > > Oh, and the all wheel drive coupling, control unit for the same, and wiring harness for the AWD control unit would have to be added, Gee, I don’t have to resolder my PC just to add a new printer, if they can do it, why can’t car makers? Another great apple to a brick wall comparison. Let me get though this next part and I will give you an answer. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > and you will also need a drive shaft > > What for? Are you telling me that the frontal drive shaft for the Vovlo SUV is mounted to the _engine_ and that it is mounted in such a way that it _cannot_ be removed, _ever?_ Because as I said before the V8 is only offered as an AWD version. If we were to try and do what you are suggesting we would have to run complete federal emission tests, crash tests, durability tests and the entire sheebang or be in violation of federal regulations. So if we were to drop a V8 (one of our dealers under our instructions) they would have to add or change all the emission equipment to the V8 spec. Remember what I said about it would be cheaper to give the guy with a blown engine a new car with a trunk full of money? Believe it. > [@](#): > > So, using something like an adaptive suspension, which could recognize the different weight (and weight balance) and make adjustments is impossible? So now you want us to create a new suspension just to justify your silly idea? RCR dude RCR/ > [@](#): > > Think harder. pull your head out of your ass. > [@](#): > > Which ones? The wiring or the hard lines? I’ve seen quick connect wiring on cars, but _never_ quick connect hard lines on a factory correct car. OK now it is official you don’t know jack shit about modern cars. Quick disconnects have been on my cars since 1993, Fords and Chevys probably 5 years or so longer than that. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > No I never said that. But not all of the engines are common. S40’s (old version and new version) have three engines that are not same as any other models. S80’s used to have a normally aspirated 6 cylinder that was not shared with any other car. > > That strikes me as being unnecessary, sort of like how GM has different engines for every division, while, Ford’s, Chrysler’s, Toyota’s, Honda’s, and Nissan’s (to name but a few) all share the same engines (with one or two exceptions here and there) across all divisions. Have you seen an S40? The old one used a 4 cylinder engine. The 5s and 6s would not fit. The new S40 uses a 5 but the castings had to be modified to fit it into that little tiny engine compartment. Like I said feel free to start your own car company. You can’t buy a Yaris with a Supra engine, so they use different engines also. Nice try. > [@](#): > > But surely you’ve ran into situations where you’ve wondered why the _fuck_ they did something the way they did? After dinking on these cars for about 20 years all told, the answer is sure I have and I have come up with one of four reasons that cover about 95% of those. [ol] [li]Cost (RCR)[/li][li]Safety (we really do change stuff for greater safety)[/li][li]Regulations (the CAN bus speed I mentioned earlier)[/li][li]The car is from Sweden (why does the heater just about melt you out of the car? It is very cold in Sweden.)[/li][/ol] The other 5 percent? Who knows, call the mysteries of the Universe hotline and ask them. > [@](#): > > Let’s look at this a little more closely, shall we? Let’s say that adding that extra hole costs Volvo $0.10 per engine. (Not an unreasonable amount, I’d say, probably a tad low, but it’s a nice round number to work with, and I doubt that either of us have access to the necessary data to compute the actual cost.) Further more, let’s say that Volvo builds 1 million of those engines a year with that extra hole (I’m sure nowhere close to the actual number, but it’s a good round number, and certainly not outside the realm of possibility.), so the total cost to Volvo for that is $100K a year. Admittedly peanuts to a multi-billion dollar a year company like Volvo, however, both GM and Chrysler have embarked on projects to shave less than that off the price of components used in their vehicles. Get enough of those savings together and pretty soon you’re talking real money. You just made my entire argument for me. Save $0.10 per hole on 10 holes is a buck, do that on 1 million holes and you have a million bucks. > [@](#): > > How often to do you have to repair the intake on an engine within a given month? Oil pump? Rebuild an engine? I assume that if a customer cracks the head on his engine, you don’t simply replace the whole engine. Am I right? Or is it standard proceedure at Volvo to replace the entire engine whenever there’s a minor problem with it? Intakes almost never. Oil pumps? Sometimes the seals go bad, this a a 3 hour job. Cracked head? Probably get the car back the next day. Complete Rebuilds? Almost never, it’s cheaper to buy another short block or long block and transfer parts. Takes a day or so after the parts arrive. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Some sense? If a customer has bad brakes, offering them a rental engine makes no sense, offering them a loan car does. If you can’t see that, you are a grade A idiot. > > Who said _anything_ about offering them a rental engine in such a situation? Ah, you did. > [@](#): > > Hey, loan cars make sense, I’ll agree, but more choice is always better, don’t you think? to which I replied > [@](#): > > Some sense? If a customer has bad brakes, offering them a rental engine makes no sense, offering them a loan car does. If you can’t see that, you are a grade A idiot. The point is when ever a customer’s car is down, for whatever the reason a loan car makes sense. A loner engine only makes sense if it is a severe engine problem. I would think this is obvious, but I guess not. > [@](#): > > I haven’t forgotten, and you’re also hurling personal insults when I’ve not done the same when you’ve disagreed with me. I have to paraphrase Bill Engval here. You know **Tuckerfan** I didn’t wake up yesterday with the intention of being an asshole. I was in a good mood then I read your post #52 and right off the bat I read > [@](#): > > So you’re telling me that there’s a difference between the 5 cylinder 2WD engine and the 5 cylinder AWD engine? :dubious: Now I probably would have let that pass, but the :dubious: just went and pushed my asshole button. See, I interpret the :dubious: as you calling me a liar. I don’t like being called a liar. It upsets me. Actually for the pit, jackass is fairly mild. Trust me, I could have gotten a lot stronger. Now you have gone ahead and posted > [@](#): > > Of course, we only have your word on any of this. So there you go calling me a liar again. > [@](#): > > And many of the features available on the Tucker _aren’t_ available on cars today. Most cars _don’t_ have lights that turn with the wheels. Just a data point, but this was illegal in this country until very recently. Look up some road tests for the Citroen SM for verification. The US cars did not have turning headlights, the European cars did. > [@](#): > > Nope. Back in 1986, I owned a 1971 Newport, same engine, transmission, and much _lower_ mileage on the clock than the 69 I own, and it got roughly the same MPG. It also had newer emission controls. Both of these cars pretty much had the same systems. Just for a comparison, I learned to drive on a '63 Chrysler Newport with a 361CI engine. No emission controls except for PCV. Pure highway was about 23mpg, city was about 20ish. Only 20CI less that your car and 7mpg more. > [@](#): > > Hole? What hole? You’re the one who started the absurdist statements, not me. You’re the one who launched into the attack on automobiles in this thread. I even defended GM’s decision to scrap the EVs (nor did I say that the EVs were lousy cars), which if one were to believe your comments that I thought _only_ Tuckers were decent cars would be impossible for me to do. So just where have I attacked automobiles in this thread (or any other for that matter). I attacked one silly idea in case you forgot here it is again > [@](#): > > So you don’t think that the idea of someone bringing their car to your shop with an engine problem, and you saying to them, “We can have your engine fixed in two days. In the meantime, would you like a rental engine to use, so that you can keep your car while we fixe the engine?” wouldn’t pay off? How often do you have customers complain that it’s taking too long to fix their car? BTW, I did make a big boo-boo in my comments in post #50. I have right now a 5th engine variant being shipped to me (an 07) It is a 3.2L 6 cylinder that is only about 10MM longer than the existing 5 cylinder engine. Added 1 cylinder, increased the displacement by .7L and only made the engine 10mm longer. That is some clever engineering. So you need to take that $16,000,000 figure and make it $20,000,000. to cover all the variants. Sorry for the miscalculations. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/68 "2006-06-29T07:37:27Z")
> [@BMalion](#): > > I understood it and I thought your post was a welcome interlude of humor. Same here (see post #57) ---
**Author:** ![Leviosaurus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/439d5e/32.png) [@Leviosaurus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leviosaurus)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/69 "2006-06-29T07:57:19Z")
Aside from a lot of snarkiness at the end, that was a damn fine post which I learned a lot from, **Rick**. Thanks. For the record, I didn’t know the difference between the 5 cylinder 2WD engine and the 5 cylinder AWD engine, either. And I would have also asked with a :dubious:. Then again, I’m admittedly ignorant on the subject of automotive technology - aside from making a few safety videos for auto companies in my previous career, I’ve never stepped into that world. Corporate bureaucracy is something I understand in spades, though, and that seems to drive a lot of what you’re talking about. (“Corporate Bureaucracy” being my term for the combination of RCR, Government regulations, the slowness of industry progress as dictated by the need for support of legacy systems, and the general malaise and FUD generated by a large enterprise.) Thank you for fighting my ignorance. Somewhere in there, you might have yourself a good article on “Why things work the way they do.” I bet it could get published. Oh, and another thanks to you (and \*\*BMalion \*\*) - for getting my humor 😉 ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/70 "2006-06-29T13:06:09Z")
I’d say that based on the judges scores, **Rick** , has the biggest dick. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/71 "2006-06-29T18:03:34Z")
Gaw-damn, Rick knows his cars in ways that I only aspire to. Reminds me of my dad. (Without too much personal information, worked/works with IndyCar, JD Power, Mercedes, Porsche in various capacities.) That said, _some to most_ of the engines could be designed to have the same mounting points, at some extra cost, but the transmission is a really key point of failure. You’d be surprised what you can fit into a car… all the way to a '02ish Mustang GT engine and transmission in a Ford Focus, for my personal favorite. (There are more outre, like this one Golf with a Porsche engine and a hydraulic rear end lift, but that’s beside the point) but his most important point remains the cost. Remember, to stop the Pinto from exploding was, what, $0.50 a car? And it was judged a worthwhile risk to save that much. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/72 "2006-06-29T18:08:01Z")
On the other hand, Rick, you’d be damn surprised to see what your customers are plugging into your cars. > **[Video Game News & Reviews | Engadget](https://www.engadget.com/gaming/)** > > Find in-depth news and hands-on reviews of the latest video games, video consoles and accessories. Makes sense, when you think about it. But messed up. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/73 "2006-06-29T20:04:01Z")
Just for kicks, I’ll pull this back to the OP. I’ve never figured out why environmentalists embraced hybrids (look, a car that still has a gas engine but gets slightly better gas mileage!) and rejected electrics. I’m setting up my home with solar (and hopefully wind) power. I live 18 miles from work. With an electric car, I’d use no gasoline, take no power from the grid, and generate no emissions. When I needed to do something the electric couldn’t do, I’d fire up my Jeep. It’s not worth much as a trade-in anyway. With a hybrid, I’d still be burning gasoline. I’d just get to spend a pile of money for the hybrid and use somewhat less gas. The gas price simply won’t justify the purchase. It would take me about 18 years to pay off a Prius from the money I’d save on gas, even at $3.00 a gallon. > [@Snickers](#): > > 'm a tree-hugging liberal, but even I realized that it’s not the car companies that killed the electric car. It’s the shortcomings of the car itself. To be more precise, it’s the _perceived_ shortcomings. > [@Leviosaurus](#): > > My issue with cars like that is that I can’t fit into them. (snip) Effecient has a distrubing tendency to mean “Smaller”. A lot of us simply can’t drive smaller cars because we’re not small. Preach it, brother. The only reasons I didn’t buy an electric car 20 years ago were (1) they were ridiculously expensive and (2) I couldn’t fit in them. > [@Wesley Clark](#): > > Electric cars are a bad idea, but plug in hybrid cars are a good idea. (snip) We’d have a world of 70mpg cars and we already have the technology to do it. So 70mpg cars (plug-in hybrids) are good, but 0mpg cars (electrics) are bad? Hmm. ---
**Author:** ![ddgryphon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8c91f0/32.png) [@ddgryphon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ddgryphon)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/74 "2006-06-29T21:37:54Z")
I’m hoping that this will improve the value of the electric models and offer other options (faster charge, improved rechargeability, and greater storage capacity): > **[Capacitors to Replace Batteries? - Slashdot](https://slashdot.org/story/06/06/09/073216/capacitors-to-replace-batteries)** > > An anonymous reader writes "MIT's Joel Schindall plans to use old technology in a new way with nanotubes. > 'We made the connection that perhaps we could take an old product, a capacitor, and use a new technology, nanotechnology, to make that old... ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/75 "2006-06-29T22:59:34Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Just for kicks, I’ll pull this back to the OP. I’ve never figured out why environmentalists embraced hybrids (look, a car that still has a gas engine but gets slightly better gas mileage!) and rejected electrics. I wasn’t aware that environmentalists had rejected electrics. Certainly one has been able to see more than a few of the more vocal or visible ones touting them. As I mentioned upthread, I’m in an area that doesn’t do well for electrics: too many hills, and the weather cycles too much into both cold and heat for them to be completely palatable for most people. The thing of it is, no matter what you can say against hybrids, they **do** appeal to a broader spectrum of the car-buying public, and compared to a conventional gas vehicle they offer benefits of the kind that many environmentalists have been pushing for years. Even the concept of the hybrid SUV will have the benefit of raising fleet milage numbers, which had been in the past a goal of the environmental movement, at least here in the States. I think it’s a matter of a compromise that while it is fully satisfying to no one, does offer something for both groups. Which electrics didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/76 "2006-06-30T01:52:41Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Just for kicks, I’ll pull this back to the OP. I’ve never figured out why environmentalists embraced hybrids (look, a car that still has a gas engine but gets slightly better gas mileage!) and rejected electrics. I’m setting up my home with solar (and hopefully wind) power. I live 18 miles from work. With an electric car, I’d use no gasoline, take no power from the grid, and generate no emissions. When I needed to do something the electric couldn’t do, I’d fire up my Jeep. It’s not worth much as a trade-in anyway. Maybe you don’t have an appreciation for just how much electricity an electric car needs, and how little your solar cells and windmill will provide. A gallon of gasoline has the energy equivalent when burned in a car of about 36 kW/h. The Prius, a very efficient car, requires about 500 W/hr per mile. [This $500 solar panel generates 110 Watts of power](http://www.siliconsolar.com/shop/catalog/110-Watt-Solar-Electric-Panel-p-16207.html). Assuming 100% charging efficiency, you would need five hours of good sunlight to charge your Prius enough to drive a mile. If you wanted a 100 mile range, and could get good sunlight 10 hours a day, it would take 25 days to charge your car. Actually more, because charging efficiency can be as low as 50%, and of course there are days when the sun doesn’t shine. So call it 50 days if you live in a sunny area. So if you want to be able to give your car a full charge in one day of sunshine, plan on buying 50 solar panels, for $25,000. And they weigh 60 lbs each, so your array will weigh 3000 pounds, take up 10,000 square feet, and have to be strong enough to withstand winds, so plan on building a heavy steel lattice to support it. Oh, and you can’t charge at night. And most people have their cars at work during the day. So you’re going to have to buy a large capacity battery, charge that, then charge your car from the battery. That’s even more inefficient. Wind is a little better. Here’s a [$2300 wind turbine](http://www.solardyne.com/noname.html) that generates 1kW in a good wind (27 mph). If you live in a very windy region, you might be able to charge up your electric car in 50 hours or so. Of course, the $2300 is just the turbine. You also have to mount it up high, pour a concrete pad and footings, etc. You also need storage batteries, electrical cables, inverters for charging your car, yada yada. If you need to charge your car every day, better buy 10 of these babies and hope the wind blows all the time. > [@](#): > > With a hybrid, I’d still be burning gasoline. I’d just get to spend a pile of money for the hybrid and use somewhat less gas. The gas price simply won’t justify the purchase. It would take me about 18 years to pay off a Prius from the money I’d save on gas, even at $3.00 a gallon. And how long will it take you to recoup your $30,000 solar panel investment? If gas is $3/gallon, that’s 10,000 gallons of gas. Enough to drive your hybrid 500,000 miles. You will never, ever, recoup the investment in solar and wind equipment to reasonably power an electric car. Not even close. > [@](#): > > To be more precise, it’s the _perceived_ shortcomings. > > Preach it, brother. The only reasons I didn’t buy an electric car 20 years ago were (1) they were ridiculously expensive and (2) I couldn’t fit in them. > > So 70mpg cars (plug-in hybrids) are good, but 0mpg cars (electrics) are bad? Hmm. Nothing wrong with all-electric, other than range issues, cost, heavy batteries, and the need to keep it charged. Just don’t think you can power one for free by setting up solar cells and wind turbines. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/77 "2006-06-30T02:43:21Z")
No need to be condescending, **Sam**. I’ve done the math, and it works. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > The Prius, a very efficient car, requires about 500 W/hr per mile. Except we’re not talking about hybrids. We’re talking about electric cars. [This article](http://auto.howstuffworks.com/electric-car.htm), for example, says it takes 12kWh to recharge after driving 50 miles. That’s about 240 Wh per mile. The [Honda EV+](http://www.hondaev.org/acar.html) does even better: 120 miles with 26.2kWh is under 220 Wh/mile. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > [This $500 solar panel generates 110 Watts of power](http://www.siliconsolar.com/shop/catalog/110-Watt-Solar-Electric-Panel-p-16207.html). Assuming 100% charging efficiency, you would need five hours of good sunlight to charge your Prius enough to drive a mile. Again, forget the Prius. My round-trip to work is 36 miles, although hopefully it’ll be shorter when I build my new house. If I only had one of the panels you specified, it would take 72 hours of sunshine to charge the car for that drive (assuming 220 Wh/mile). Quite true. But an array of solar panels to run my house would have at least 20 panels in it (about $10K retail), and could charge the car in about 3-1/2 hours, or about a third of the sunlight in a typical day, leaving the other 2/3 of the generated power for the house. Seems pretty reasonable to me, even without the backup of a windmill (it’s really windy around here). And if that fails, I use the secondary backup of a generator, and I’m no worse off than I am today, burning fossil fuel in my car. But if I don’t want to do that, my tertiary backup is the power grid itself. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > …and of course there are days when the sun doesn’t shine And of course home solar power systems have battery banks to save power for a rainy day. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Wind is a little better. Here’s a [$2300 wind turbine](http://www.solardyne.com/noname.html) that generates 1kW in a good wind (27 mph). If you live in a very windy region, you might be able to charge up your electric car in 50 hours or so. And if we adjust this for my actual driving distances, and for electric cars instead of a Prius, I can charge the car from the windmill alone in under 8 hours. _At night_, without using the solar panels. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > And how long will it take you to recoup your $30,000 solar panel investment? And let’s adjust your math again. My investment is actually about $25K, which includes solar panels, wind turbine, battery backup system, and crossover switching for the house to main power grid. _And it runs my house as well as my car_. Figuring I currently drive about 12,000 miles/year at 20mpg, I’m spending about $1,800 per year in gas (at $3/gallon). My current power bills run $200 to $300 per month. Call it $3,000 per year. My basic payback happens in a bit over 5 years. Yes, I know I have to replace the battery backup system at the house every few years, but when we’re getting good wind and/or sunshine, I can sell power back to the power company, which helps to offset that. There are also tax incentives for building eco-friendly houses, which help to offset the costs of the solar and wind equipment. I’ll be conservative, though, and figure the real payback will be closer to 7 years. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > You will never, ever, recoup the investment in solar and wind equipment to reasonably power an electric car. Not even close. Funny how fast “never…not even close” turns into seven years, _and powers my house at the same time_. If you want to say that you ( **Sam Stone** , specifically) can’t financially justify a plug-in hybrid car by building a dedicated solar/wind power system for it, then say that. Don’t try to say that I (me, specifically) can’t financially justify an electric car when I’m planning to build a solar/wind power system for my house anyway! ---
**Author:** ![mike1dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@mike1dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mike1dog)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/78 "2006-06-30T04:00:45Z")
I’m a mechanic at a Ford dealership, and for about the last twenty years, they’ve had quick connects on the fuel lines. The wiring harnesses just unclip too. It hasn’t appreciably sped up the replacement of engines. If you think any car dealer is going to stock “loaner engines” you must be insane. We can usually get an engine overnight, and even if say every engine with the same displacement was the same design, we’d have to stock about nine different engines just to service the cars ford currently warrants. Ford would probably find some way to make the dealer shoulder most of the cost anyway, like it does with its car loaner program. It’s enough trouble giving a customer a loaner car. I could tell you horror stories about the loaner cars at the dealership I work at. I’m sure some would try to destroy the engine just to see if he could. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/79 "2006-06-30T05:48:19Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > No need to be condescending, **Sam**. I’ve done the math, and it works. Sorry, didn’t mean to sound condescending. > [@](#): > > Except we’re not talking about hybrids. We’re talking about electric cars. [This article](http://auto.howstuffworks.com/electric-car.htm), for example, says it takes 12kWh to recharge after driving 50 miles. That’s about 240 Wh per mile. The [Honda EV+](http://www.hondaev.org/acar.html) does even better: 120 miles with 26.2kWh is under 220 Wh/mile. True, you can do better than a Prius. But where? Is there a vehicle in particular you’re looking at? The Honda and EV1 are not available. > [@](#): > > Again, forget the Prius. My round-trip to work is 36 miles, although hopefully it’ll be shorter when I build my new house. If I only had one of the panels you specified, it would take 72 hours of sunshine to charge the car for that drive (assuming 220 Wh/mile). Quite true. But an array of solar panels to run my house would have at least 20 panels in it (about $10K retail), and could charge the car in about 3-1/2 hours, or about a third of the sunlight in a typical day, leaving the other 2/3 of the generated power for the house. Seems pretty reasonable to me, even without the backup of a windmill (it’s really windy around here). And if that fails, I use the secondary backup of a generator, and I’m no worse off than I am today, burning fossil fuel in my car. But if I don’t want to do that, my tertiary backup is the power grid itself. I don’t quite understand - you’ve sized your solar and wind power system for your house, and you’re just going to add on the car without extending anything? That 3 1/2 hours your car is charging is consuming ALL your power. And 3 1/2 hours of daylight per day is a significant percentage of your overall power availability. If you don’t need that for your house, then you could skip the car and downsize your solar/wind system. It seems to me like you’re playing with the numbers a bit to make them come out the way you want. > [@](#): > > And of course home solar power systems have battery banks to save power for a rainy day. Yeah. And that creates extra inefficiency, because you have to charge the batteries, then charge the car from the house battery to the car’s battery. Lead-acid batteries are only 60-70% efficient in charging, as I recall. That means a two-stage charging system is only going to be ~40% efficient. Have you factored that in? > [@](#): > > And if we adjust this for my actual driving distances, and for electric cars instead of a Prius, I can charge the car from the windmill alone in under 8 hours. _At night_, without using the solar panels. If the wind is blowing 27 mph. How often is that? > [@](#): > > And let’s adjust your math again. My investment is actually about $25K, which includes solar panels, wind turbine, battery backup system, and crossover switching for the house to main power grid. _And it runs my house as well as my car_. Figuring I currently drive about 12,000 miles/year at 20mpg, I’m spending about $1,800 per year in gas (at $3/gallon). My current power bills run $200 to $300 per month. Call it $3,000 per year. My basic payback happens in a bit over 5 years. Let’s see the numbers. How many kW/h did you use in your house last year? The amount should be on your power bill. Now let’s add in how many kW/h your car needs, and figure out your total consumption. Then let’s size a system that lets you COMPLETELY replace that consumption. That means figuring out how many hours a year you get sun, how often the wind is high enough to drive the turbine, etc. My guess is, you won’t come near to getting off the grid. Yet your assuming all your power bills simply go away. > [@](#): > > Yes, I know I have to replace the battery backup system at the house every few years, but when we’re getting good wind and/or sunshine, I can sell power back to the power company, which helps to offset that. There are also tax incentives for building eco-friendly houses, which help to offset the costs of the solar and wind equipment. > > I’ll be conservative, though, and figure the real payback will be closer to 7 years. That doesn’t sound very conservative to me. Aside from battery replacement, how about maintenance on the turbine? Solar cells wear out - the one I pointed to had a warranty of 10 years. Better figure in the amortized cost of all that. Oh, and don’t forget the cost of money. You’re sinking 25-30K into a capital improvement to avoid paying a monthly bill. If you put that money in a 5% bearing T-Bill or something that’s a monetary cost of $1250-$1500 per year, compounded. > [@](#): > > Funny how fast “never…not even close” turns into seven years, _and powers my house at the same time_. I think it only turned into seven years through wishful thinking. > [@](#): > > If you want to say that you ( **Sam Stone** , specifically) can’t financially justify a plug-in hybrid car by building a dedicated solar/wind power system for it, then say that. > > Don’t try to say that I (me, specifically) can’t financially justify an electric car when I’m planning to build a solar/wind power system for my house anyway! This doesn’t make sense, because as I pointed out the car is additional energy - a significant amount - that you are treating as a ‘freebie’ because you have the system anyway. Again - if the system is big enough to support your car AND your house, it’s much bigger and more expensive than what you would have needed for the house alone. If you’re sizing it for the amount of power you currently use in your house, then adding an electric car is going to be a rude shock to your power budget. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2006, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065/80 "2006-06-30T06:49:36Z")
Okay, folks, prior to this, I’d been making my posts in a rush, as I didn’t have very much time. However, I’m off until the fifth of July, so that means I’ve not got to just vomit something out and dash off to work. I don’t really like parsing things to the subatomic level (i.e. “You put your comma _here_ so obviously you meant _this_ even though you claim to be talking about something else entirely.” Despite the fact that it’s patently obvious what the poster _meant_.), but since **Rick** wants to play hardball, and I’ve got plenty of free time, here we go. Get comfortable, this is going to be _long_. > [@Rick](#): > > Before we get started all me to share **Rick’s Cardinal rule of Car making** > The way to make a million dollars in the car business is simple. Save a dollar a car and build a million of them. This applies to so much of what follows, I am going to refer to it as RCR so save me some typing. Ah, yes, aphorisms. Lots of management books are filled with them, and while they all do contain a grain of truth to them, they’re also a bit simplistic. You know what my favorite saying is? “If it makes sense, it must be against company policy.” I’ve gotten lots of laughs at my various jobs when I’ve used that one. Of course, it doesn’t mean that it’s always true, but it sure makes it easy to deal with things when management suddenly decides that the first pallet on the truck is the one with the packing lists on it, and we can’t generate the packing lists until _after_ we’ve finished stacking all the pallets (which means that instead of loading them on to the truck after they get full, we have to stage them to the side, so that we can stack the other boxes coming down the conveyor, and _then_ load everything in a rush, as the packing lists aren’t generated until about half an hour before quitting time), only to have management reverse themselves a month later when they realize how stupid the idea was. > [@](#): > > See RCR above, if you don’t drill and tap a hole and it save you $0.10 you are that much ahead. Drilling and tapping unnecessary holes costs you profit. Do I have to remind you that _you_ were the one who mentioned that Volvo does this? > [@](#): > > Nice apples to hand grenades comparison there Sparky. Not really. Last time I checked, the computers used in cars cost more than the **metal**. To clarify, _more_ of the sticker price is determined by the cost of the computers than the metal. > [@](#): > > First off our customers do not add video cars or sound cards or any of that shit to our networks. No, but they _do_ add things like performance chips, superchargers, turbochargers, dual exhausts, and the like. Heck, customers have even been known to change their own oil! Or even replace the battery! Shocking, I know, that customers would seek to do things on their own without turning to a trained professional, but people do strange things. I’ll get to more reasons as to why this isn’t as crazy as it may sound in a moment. > [@](#): > > Secondly, the computers system used on the 5 and six cylinder engines were designed in the mid 1990s. Right about the time that Microsoft announced the whole “Plug an Play” concept that was going to be an integral part of Windows 95. But let’s get down to some of the nitty gritty aspects of automotive design. It is a _given_ that emission controls will become more strict in the future. Has been, pretty much since emission controls were required on cars. It’s also a given that quality will continue to be important to consumers, and has been since the Japanese began kicking the Big Three’s asses back in the 1980s. It’s also a given that technology will continue to advance, and this has been a given since mankind first walked upright. And while car makers take, on average, five or so years to go from concept to production, it’s not like they are working in a vacuum. All of them do customer surveys, and they spend billions on lobbbyists, so they can make educated guesses, or exercise some control over things. > [@](#): > > This is before Ford bought Volvo, and before a V8 was even a thought. While one would be hard pressed to predict mergers five years in advance, there is a concept called [future proof](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_proof). PC makers use it all the time. Admittedly it is not perfect, but it _does_ allow them to come up with standards like USB, USB 2.0, firewire, and the like. There’s also [Moore’s Law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law), which has proven to be an accurate predictor of computer technology. The various PC and component manufacturers get together every couple of years and say, “Okay, presently we’re using this standard for data transfer (or similar), and technology is now progressing to the point where this is going to be a drag on the system, so we’re going to change _this_ to speed things up, and we’d like to have hardware and software available to take advantage of these new capabilities X amount of time from now.” I know for a _fact_ that car makers do the same thing with their suppliers. They let their suppliers know what they’re planning ahead of time so that the suppliers have time to work out most of the kinks before the end user ever sees the product. (It is, of course, completely impossible to predict _all_ the kinks, but everyone does their best to work them out before production starts, and any that crop up _after_ something new is introduced are corrected as quickly as possible.) > [@](#): > > Now about the specific differences. The 5 and 6 cylinder systems are Bosch, and the V8 fuel system is from Denso. Which is meaningless, since it was most likely **Volvo** (or a consortium of **all** the car makers) who designed them. Bosch _didn’t_ say, “Here’s what we’re designing, and if you don’t like it, tough titties.” Even if that _were_ the case, it wouldn’t be a problem, since there’s _tons_ of lead time between when something is announced and when it goes into production. > [@](#): > > The 5 and 6 cylinder systems used a 250 KBS network speed, the V8 to comply with the federal regulations that come in with the 2006 Model year uses a 500KB network speed. I’ll note that USB 2.0 is designed with what’s called _backwards_ compatibility. This means that a USB 1.0 or 1.1 device will still work with a PC that only has USB 2.0 ports. So it seems to me that it should be possible for a V8 computer to handle the data transfer rate of a V5 or V6 computer, not that it really matters, since in the case of a rental engine, I was talking about dropping a V8 engine into a vehicle which (perhaps) used a V5 or V6 engine normally. > [@](#): > > Lastly despite the some what misleading names the 5 cylinder has five spark plugs and five injectors. I’m sure that I don’t have to tell you that this isn’t always the case. Some engines have two spark plugs per cylinder. Not that it really matters, since the distributor (or equivalent) is mounted on the engine, and in the case of an engine swap, would most likely be replaced with the engine. The only exception to this that I can think of is when the distributor (or equivalent) on the replacement engine is defective. > [@](#): > > The V8 has 8 of each. See previous comment. > [@](#): > > The 5 cylinder engines has two camshafts with either one or two cam position sensors. And one or two camshaft reset valves for cam timing. The V8 has four cams with four cam sensors. And you guessed it four camshaft reset valves. Not really a big deal, if you’re using an engine computer which can anticipate differences (of course, one can’t perfectly predict what future differences will be, so one could always allow the possibility of updating the drivers like Microsoft, Apple, and the Linux community do). This goes back to the whole concept of “future proof” I mentioned earlier. > [@](#): > > So if I understand your pitting here, you are complaining that our engineers in the mid 90’s did not have a good enough crystal ball to for see that we were going to be bought by Ford, have a V8 engine and that the Federal government was going to require a communication protocol that did not even exist at the time they were designing the fuel system. Nope. What I’m mentioning (I’m _not_ Pitting it, as if you’ll notice the OP was about a misleading film on electric cars, _you’re_ the one who dragged contemporary cars into it) is that PC manufacturers and software engineers seem to be more on the ball than the automotive engineers in _some_ cases. Thankfully, when my car stalls, I don’t need to go through things like rolling the windows up and down, whereas when my PC screws up, I’ve got to do all kinds of things unrelated to the original problem just to get the damn thing working again. I’m awfully glad I don’t need to tear my car apart and reassemble it just because it hesitates occassionally. Can’t say the same thing about the PCs I’ve owned. > [@](#): > > Need I mention that hindsight is always 20/20? Of course, the automobile has been around for over 100 years now, and while much of the technology has improved to a signifcant degree, the basic principles (fuel+air+spark=power) haven’t changed. > [@](#): > > That would be me calling you stupid for expecting our engineers to be able to foresee the future. This might come as shock to you, but periodically, my PC gets these things called “updates” from Microsoft. It seems that Microsoft is incapable of predicting everything that might be discovered about an operating system, so they’ve developed this process where they create a “patch” which is used to fix a problem that appears _after_ the product has hit the market. The automotive industry should really consider something similar. They could call it a “recall.” > [@](#): > > Again there are 8 spark plugs on a V8 and only 5 or 6 on the Bosch system. The idle might be just a tad rough if we didn’t fire those last 2 or 3 plugs don’t you think? What about the extra two camshaft resest valves? and the extra two or three cam position sensors? Just leave them dangle? I don’t know. I seem to recall that Dodge makes this pick up truck with a V-10 engine where the back two cylinders don’t fire all the time. Perhaps they know something that Volvo _doesn’t_. You tell me. > [@](#): > > I know that this may come as a shock to you, but a 4.4L V8 tends to use just a tad more gas than a 2.4L 5 cylinder. That requires a larger fuel line. Hmmm. That’s a tricky one. You know, on some of the cars I’ve worked on (and I freely admit that I’ve worked **nowhere** near the number of cars you have) they’ve had this thing called a"fuel return line." I’m guessing here, but from the name it sounds like that it takes the extra fuel which isn’t used by the engine and pumps it back to the fuel tank. Do you think that if Volvo used the same size fuel line on **all** their engines (no matter _what_ the displacement) they could make use of such a thing? > [@](#): > > Also since the engines are different the physical location of where the fuel line enters the engine compartment is different. Hmm. You don’t suppose that someone could use something like a _flexible_ tubing, do you? I mean, that way you could bend the tubing as you saw fit. I realize that this might necessitate something like a zip tie to hold everything down, but for some strange reason, I have this feeling that there’s not a mechanic out there would couldn’t figure out how to use one. Admittedly, I’m just a shade tree mechanic and don’t have the kind of trainging that you do, so I’ll take your word if you say that this impossible. > [@](#): > > Could it be changed, sure, but it would violate RCR. How about if everything about the fuel lines was standardized across _everything?_ You know, you pick one size, and one entry location for the fuel compartment? Would that work? > [@](#): > > :smack: Are you trying for the troll of the month award, or have you never looked under the hood of a car? You know that’s one of the “great” things about being poor. I _don’t_ have the luxury of _not_ looking under the hood when something goes wrong. If it’s broke, I’m pretty much the one who has to fix it. Of course, there’s _lots_ of things above my skill set, soo you know what I do in those situations? I call my brother or my mother. My brother used to be an automechanic, and if he says, “You’re better off paying someone to do it.” I listen to him. My mother works for a Honda dealership, and she can ask the mechanics what they think if my brother doesn’t know. I’ll admit that I’ve **not** done the kind of sophisticated repairs that you’ve done. Nor is it likely that I will, since I don’t have the free time necessary to go to school to learn the things, but I _have_ looked under the hood of a car. I’ll give you the short list of the kind of repairs that I’ve done. I’ve rebuilt the carb on a 1980 Jeep Cherokee, replaced alternators on a 1988 Lincoln Continental, 1971 Chrysler Newport, 1986 Ford Ranger, replaced the exhaust manifolds on a 1980 Cherokee, installed a new catalytic convertor on same, replaced the headlight switch on a 1980 Honda Accord, installed starters on nearly every car I’ve owned, and replaced the brakes. Again, and no sarcasm intended, I’m sure that this _pales_ in comparison to what you’ve done. And if I’ve somehow implied you _don’t_ know your way around an engine compartment, I apologize profusely. Were I to have a problem with my car that I couldn’t fix, I wouldn’t hesitate to have you as my mechanic. > [@](#): > > A five cylinder engine has the intake on one side, a V8 has it in the middle. Let’s clarify things. Again, I am _not_ the mechanic you are, nor will I ever be, so I want to make sure that we’re on the same page here. When you’re talking “intake” are you talking about the manifold on the engine block, or are you talking about the flexible hose which runs from what I’ve always heard referred to as the “intake manifold” to the “fresh air inlet”? Because, as I’m sure I don’t have to tell you, there’s a big difference between the two. If you’re doing an engine swap, I don’t see any reason to remove the intake manifold, but I can certainly understand why you might need to switch to a hose of different lengths. Of course, if you’re talking about the intake manifold, I can’t see why you’d want to swap it out. > [@](#): > > Our 5 cylinder engines have a turbo mounted behind the engine on the exhaust side. I’ve never heard of a V engine with only one exhaust manifold. My understanding, and I could be wrong about this, is that V engines have exhaust manifolds on _both_ sides of the engine. If it is indeed true that Volvo has a V5 engine with an exhaust manifold on _one_ side of the engine, could you be so kind as to scan the relevant pages from the factory service manual and post them so that I can check them out? I’m really interested in how they managed to do that. > [@](#): > > The V8 has exhausts on both sides. Now, since I don’t know very much about Volvos (I did love that commercial they had back in the 1980s where the Volvo goes flying off the roof of the building, smacks into the ground and skids without most of the car deforming. BTW, do Volvos still have the integrated safety cage? I never understood why no one else adopted that, it was such a good idea.), let me ask you again to clarify things: You’re telling me that the V5 engine (which, if I understand you correctly, is the smallest engine Volvo currently offers) has only **one** exhaust manifold and the V8 has two. Is that right? I can’t see how it could be, but you are, after all, the expert. > [@](#): > > If it is possible to reuse parts from one version to another we do to keep up with RCR. I want to interject something here that I’m sure you’ll agree with: RCR is important, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that something with a high RCR is going to survive. Studebaker-Packard, for example, had a fairly high RCR, but still died out due to mismanagement and Eisenhower’s Secretary of Defense screwing them over. > [@](#): > > However when there is a large piece of metal where you used to have an air filter, you have to move it. And what large piece of metal would that be? After all, if you’re pulling the engine, you’re most likely going to pulling the intake manifold with it as well. I suppose there _are_ situations where you’d have to remove the intake manifold **before** you could pull the engine, but I think, and I might be mistaken in this, you’d agree that any engineer who designed such a set up should be taken out an shot. > [@](#): > > As far as the data network goes, the V8 meets the '06 federal requirements from start of production, the '03 and '04 5 and 6 cylinders do not. So how do you manage to sell them? Or, are you saying that Volvo periodically adjusts their designs to meet new regulations? I hope you don’t mind if I diverge slightly from the topic at hand, but it does kind of relate. Moore’s Law states that processor speed will double every 18 months, and so far this has held to be true. Of course, we know that barring a breakthrough which allows us to build [quantum computers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer), there’s going to be a _limit_ as to what computers are capable of. We even know what this limit is (you’ll forgive me if I’m too lazy to dig it up, but the actual number’s really only a minor point), and it seems to me, but maybe I’m nuts, that the smart thing to do, when laying out the standards for new PC hardware, is to take that limit (let’s say it’s 200 kiloquad per second), and say that every new communication standard on PCs has to be capable of 400 kiloquads per second. (Mind you I’m talking about _communication **speed** _, which is _different_ than processing speed, the same way that horsepower and torque are different [a bit of a simplification, but it should make my gist clear].) That way, the hardware vendors have ample time to work the kinks out of a design before it _ever_ becomes possible to utlilize all of it. Of course, I’m neither a PC engineer, nor a software engineer, so I could be talking out of my ass here. Okay, I’ve hit the limit on the number of characters per post that the board will allow, and I am nowhere near done. **Rick** , I ask you not to respond until I get everything covered (I’ll say when I’m done, don’t worry), and if you hit the same limit, I’ll be more than happy to do the same for you. After all, the primary mission of this board is to fight ignorance, and I think that when I’m done, you’ll see that I’m not a **complete** dumbass. (Please also forgive the typos above. I really don’t feel like going through 200K or so characters to correct a stupid typo. I promise not to jump on you for any typos you might make.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-killed-the-electric-car/362065.md?page=5)