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.
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?”
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, is this done out of engineering necessity, or because they were designed by different groups within Volvo?
Yet, again, is this an engineering necessity and if so, why?
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.
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?
Again, doesn’t sound like an insurmountable problem to me. Simply use the same subframe and mount points on all future models.
And this relates to the engine, how?
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?
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?
So, using something like an adaptive suspension, which could recognize the different weight (and weight balance) and make adjustments is impossible?
Think harder.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Who said anything about offering them a rental engine in such a situation?
I haven’t forgotten, and you’re also hurling personal insults when I’ve not done the same when you’ve disagreed with me.
Have you asked them?
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.
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.
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. As you can tell, it’s a large, wrap around design. And as this photo illustrates, 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. 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, 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?
And your point is? Jay Leno’s got a 1930s steam car that meets modern California emissions, and it’s all original.
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.
And according to this site, Kaiser started production in Argentina in 1956.
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.
Not much, I’ll admit, but it’s a start if you want to dig on your own.
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.
