Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Technology

Technology Makes New Cars Too Expensive to Fix 1246

securitas writes "The CSM's Eric Evarts reports on how technology makes new cars too expensive to repair, which may lead to disposable cars. The increased use of expensive electronics, air bags and advanced, lightweight body materials are causing costs to rise. Add to it the cost of specialized training and equipment (for an aluminum-body repair shop: $200,000) or even the cost of new parts alone (xenon high-intensity-discharge headlights: $3,000 each), not to mention the knowledge base required (over 1 million pages, available only electronically vs. 100 pages 20 years ago) and a labor shortage. From the article: 'Specialist technicians need advanced reading, problem-solving, and basic electronics skills.... The best people to find are those who have worked in the IT [information technology] industry.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Technology Makes New Cars Too Expensive to Fix

Comments Filter:
  • by r_glen ( 679664 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:01PM (#8905125)
    I'd rather have an older, less advanced car that I actually have a chance of fixing. Who needs all this new car technology anyways?
  • Disposable cars? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cubicledrone ( 681598 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:03PM (#8905141)
    No. Not as long as the average television-advertised car costs about $35,000 (Five years of $400 payments, and you STILL don't own it)

    Perhaps they could make the cars simpler by removing the DVD players? Are people so bored that they must be watching movies/television constantly? How about READING a BOOK?

  • by darth_MALL ( 657218 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:03PM (#8905165)
    I'm sure a portion of this trend is a ploy to keep the repairs of auto's in-house. A Ford dealership, for example, makes a LOT of money doing repairs. If they can force a clentele, its gravy money, of which a chunk goes back to the Ford headquarters. Seems like a sane progression, now that manufacture costs for these specialty components are probably WAY down for the manufacturers.
  • by RCO ( 597148 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:04PM (#8905172) Journal
    I could have just taken that job as a mechanic straight out of High School and built my skills up to the point that I could be making good money in the automotive industry rather than spent all those years and all that money in college to get to the same point? I'm feeling a little depressed.
  • guess what (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrsev ( 664367 ) <mrsev@spyma c . com> on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:05PM (#8905182)
    rant

    They want your money.
    They do not want you to fix it yourself.
    They want to sell you a whole new part every time!
    They do not want you to buy a part from someone else.
    They want you to get then to fix it in one of their repairshops. /rant
  • Re:Oxymoron? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by confused one ( 671304 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:05PM (#8905187)
    strong != flexible.
  • The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AcquaCow ( 56720 ) * <acquacow@nOspAM.hotmail.com> on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:06PM (#8905195) Homepage
    Newer cars are being treated like appliances rather than machines. Machines you have to maintain, appliances you replace.

    The problem with this is that cars _are_ indeed machines. People are just lazy.

    People no longer care if "that thing's got a hemi" They just want 50mpg and oil that never has to be replaced.

    It's sad.
  • Re:Oxymoron? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ruprecht the Monkeyb ( 680597 ) * on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:07PM (#8905211)
    Strong means it requires a lot of force to affect a change in its shape. Brittle means that instead of bending or subtly deforming when enough force is applied, it will shear or shatter instead. You might be able to un-bend a deformed mount. A shattered mount has to be replaced.
  • by mopslik ( 688435 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:07PM (#8905217)

    Are people so bored that they must be watching movies/television constantly? How about READING a BOOK?

    I'd rather they WATCHED the ROAD.

  • This is too true (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigjnsa500 ( 575392 ) <bigjnsa500@nOSpAM.yahoo.com> on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:07PM (#8905223) Homepage Journal
    Just pop the hood of any new car nowadays. Almost everything is *enclosed* in plastic. It's getting to the point where dealers will have a monopoly on car repair.

    How can you fix this problem? Stop buying new cars when you car is perfectly good. Plus it will save you a few bills each month.

  • by cubicledrone ( 681598 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:08PM (#8905239)
    Yes. Are the people RIDING in the car so bored, NOT the people DRIVING, but the people RIDING in the car.

    Thank you.
  • Bic Cars (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thales ( 32660 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:08PM (#8905242) Homepage Journal
    I Have bought cars like a Bic Lighter for years. Get a Cheap one in the 500 to 1000 dollar price range, drive it till it breaks down and go get another one.

    With New Car payments in the 400 dollar plus range if an 800 dollar car lasts over two months (most do) you are ahead of the people driving new cars. The Champ junker I bought was a 200 dollar 1977 Caprice that lasted 3 years and still fetched 75 bucks from the scrap yard!
  • by CatGrep ( 707480 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:09PM (#8905251)
    increased use of expensive electronics

    The use of electronics in cars was supposed to make them cheaper not more expensive. The problem isn't generally the 'expensive electronics' the problem usually is that there aren't enough trained technicians to fix electronic problems. Most mechanics are trained in, well mechanics, not electronics.

    xenon high-intensity-discharge headlights: $3,000 each

    I'm thinking this isn't a general problem. How many people are buying cars that have $6000 worth
    of headlights alone? Damn, those must be some mighty fine headlights, why not just equip the car with nightvision goggles, it would be cheaper.

    Specialist technicians need advanced reading, problem-solving, and basic electronics skills.... The best people to find are those who have worked in the IT [information technology] industry.

    I've actually been thinking that automotive electronics diagnostics & repair could be a good field to get into - it can't be outsourced and the demand is there.
  • Re:Oxymoron? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Oliver Wendell Jones ( 158103 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:10PM (#8905266)
    Aluminum. Not very strong, but how often do you see it shatter? It just bends

    But if it doesn't shatter, then how can you expect to make a fortune selling replacement parts?
  • by Otter ( 3800 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:10PM (#8905275) Journal
    It depends if you're talking about headlights or crash protection. If I were on his jury, I'd acquit anyone arrested for stealing those goddamn headlights (what kind of safety feature is it to blind oncoming traffic?).

    But a lot of the issues raised in the article are for what are at least supposed to make you safer. If the teenager in the first paragraph had to throw away a new BMW but got to keep his legs, how expensive was that car, really? Even just in dollars and cents, a new pair of legs isn't cheap, nor is learning to use them.

  • by Jim_Maryland ( 718224 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:11PM (#8905287)
    Looks like I'll continue repairing my own vehicle along with the family/friend vehicles.

    Really though, many of the repair manuals (I often use the Haynes manuals myself) available for vehicles contain fairly detailed information for troubleshooting and repairing vehicles. I do find that the tools that I have to purchase are becoming more expensive, but it still beats going to the mechanic in most cases. Of course I always look for an excuse to buy new tools.

    I find that most people are afraid to attempt even simple repairs so the high tech problems won't change the consumer behavior of running to the shop for any problem. The trend will lead to higher tech mechanics though (higher salary, higher repair bill).

    Now the one thing I would appreciate from the auto manufacturer is simplifying the onboard diagnostics. I'll even settle for the blinking LEDs sequences I've seen in some of my older cars.
  • Profit Margins (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Effugas ( 2378 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:11PM (#8905291) Homepage
    It's worth pointing out that profit margins for new vehicles are quite large -- I think the last figure I heard, on a variable cost basis, was $3,000 for a $20,000 car. Fixed costs are, of course, enormous -- R&D, testing, compliance, advertising, sunk costs in the factory, etc -- but whipping up one more Corolla is pretty cheap.

    In other words, relief to the insurance industry will probably come via mandated replacements by the manufacturer, at cost (or maybe cost+10%). This could get worked into warranty programs, first as a perk, then as something greater.

    Keep in mind, if your car is totalled, who's to say you'll buy the same brand next time around? Properly managed (i.e. worked into the cost of each car sold), this isn't a bad strategy for keeping customers loyal to your brand.

    Manufacturer replacement is thus almost guaranteed to occur.

    --Dan
  • A $3K headlight? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tony Hammitt ( 73675 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:12PM (#8905298)
    Why would anyone want a $3K headlight, or a car that required them? Isn't there a limit to the candlepower a headlight can legally have when driving in a city? Wouldn't any old headlight be good enough for most purposes?

    Cars with "features" like that are just conspicuously wasteful. Target market: Paris Hilton, etc. As if paying more for something makes it better.

    I'm getting to the point of being shocked speechless by all the willfull stupidity in the world. I paid less than $3000 for a car that I drove over 150K miles (Oldsmobile, still running, I got a car with 4 doors instead when I had kids) now that's what they want for a headlight????? This wastefulness makes me sick.
  • by afidel ( 530433 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:13PM (#8905325)
    We all do. Because cars with more advanced engine controll computers will get better gas milage and pollute less, likewise with lighter body panels. Also better airbags (dual stage and even more advanced) are less likely to kill small women and children when they discharge in a low speed crash. Whining because mechanics have to be smarter isn't the answer, training people who used to work in a manual but skilled labor to do a manual, skilled, and knowledge based job is. So your average backyard tinkerer has less chance to fix his own vehicle, so what (and besides this is BS, look at the import racing scene where kids are able to modify the heck out of these computer filled cars). The only thing I don't get is the $3K headlights, if they were really that expensive they would be a seperate option on the car, it's just a huge markup for the manufacturer because they probably have patents on the design.
  • Not Worried (Score:4, Insightful)

    by atheos ( 192468 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:13PM (#8905332) Homepage
    Since the advent of computers & other high tech components in automobiles, people have long been predicting the same thing.
    Honestly, how many 1970 automobiles do pass on your way to work?

    Consumers buy new cars every few years regardless of the maintenance costs on their trade in cars, and people will never stop crashing their cars & filling salvage yards with plenty of recyclable parts.
    In a sense, cars have been "disposable" for many years.
    Leased vehicles are "disposed" from one class of consumers, down to another class and so on.

    This reminds me of a book I read about garbology (can't remember the title), where scientist were baffled about the low quantity of washers & dryers found in dumps. They discovered that broken appliances were exported to central and south America to be rebuilt, and that many of the appliances used there were decades old!
  • by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:14PM (#8905355)
    These guys are on crack. Auto dealers get a good deal of their profits from repairs. They aren't about to let the carmakers close off this business.

    As far as the headlight cost, a full conversion kit including ballasts, headlights and wiring harness typically costs $500. The actual lights are about $50 ea. Not $3000.

  • Re:Oxymoron? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by The Blue Meanie ( 223473 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:17PM (#8905402)
    Nope, no oxymoron. Take some materials science classes, they're actually pretty eye-opening. Strong and brittle can exist happily together. Pure iron is another example of a strong but brittle material.
    "Strong" implies that the material can take a relatively large amount of stress before it fails/breaks. It has nothing to do with what actually *happens* when it fails.
    "Brittle" means that when the material fails, it fails abruptly and completely. The opposite of brittle is malleable (the material bends, or fails slowly instead of snapping abruptly).
    Think of the difference between snapping a hard pretzel stick vs. tearing a soft pretzel. The hard pretzel can be quite strong - especially if it's as thick as normal soft pretzel - but when it breaks, it breaks completely and abruptly, and with basically no warning.

    Of course this isn't so much of a problem as compared to the special materials handling required to work with magnesium parts. Like they said, the training and equipment needed to handle aluminum body work is expensive. Well, the same goes for magnesium.
  • Re:Recycling (Score:2, Insightful)

    by wcrowe ( 94389 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:18PM (#8905407)
    Actually, I think automobiles deserve a "greener" reputation than they usually get. Much of an old or wrecked auto gets recycled whether in the form of used parts, or scrap metal. That really doesn't happen with other big-ticket items like refrigerators, washers, dryers, water-heaters, PC's, stereos, etc., etc.

  • by Mycroft_VIII ( 572950 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:18PM (#8905409) Journal
    No kidding, how are these allowed when in many jurisdictions you can get a ticket if you have your high-beams on when there is on coming traffic.
    I BRIEFLY flash my highbeams at anyone who's headlights blind me because of brightness to notify them they need to dim thier lights. But over the last couple of years I've had more and more people respond by turning on thier brights because they had these lights and it only apeared they were running with thier high beams on. I go from blinded to blinded and in pain!
    I don't care how much better you can see the road, it doese no good if you get hit head on by some poor schmuck you just blinded.

    Mycroft
    (ps all you idiots who jack your truck up and don't recalibrate the beam angle on your headlights so as not to blind oncoming traffic should be forced to drive a small 3-4cylinder 2door for a month, at night!)

  • by Zweistein_42 ( 753978 ) * on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:18PM (#8905413) Homepage
    b) is only half the truth... that laptop-wielding mechanic also won't have a clue when some actual trouble-shooting needs to be done. I've had technicians who could hear the horrible, screeching sounds coming from the engine as well as I could, but since no codes were forthcoming from the diagnostic machine, the problem "did not exist". So... some problems are easy to diagnose -- if there's a working sensor designed to detect that specific problem. Other problems are devilishly difficult as cars get so complex that it is near impossible to figure out what is causing an intermittent glitch.
  • by Danse ( 1026 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:20PM (#8905449)

    I get so tired of hearing people complain about TVs or DVD players in cars. They are almost always installed in the ceiling between the front seats and facing the rear, or are installed in the backs of the front seats. They are there for passengers to watch. Usually for children to keep them entertained on trips. Hell, it could almost be considered a safety feature. At least if they are watching TV or playing video games they might not be so bored that they end up fighting with each other and have mom or dad trying to look back at them and yell at them instead of driving.

  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:20PM (#8905451) Journal
    For the cost of a new car, you can have a custom done

    Unless you factor in the cost of lawsuits. One mistake leading to a spine-crunching accident can wipe you out.
  • by bobbis.u ( 703273 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:21PM (#8905460)
    But you have to admit mechanically speaking new cars are much more reliable than old ones. The components are more precisely designed, they are constructed of better (i.e. more suitable) materials and parts are machined + assembled to lower tolerances. Even tyres seem to last longer these days. I will concede that the reliability of the electronics and software does still leave a lot to be desired.

    New cars are also much safer and easier to drive, both of which are important factors for most.

    Perhaps we should take the view that the fact that it is no longer viable to repair cars means we have developed amazing manufacturing techniques to make the cars so cheap in the first place. We are packing a hell of a lot of engineering into one machine!

    Having said all this, it is essential these new cars that are written off after a fender bender can be recycled effectively.

  • by Deamos ( 108051 ) <deamosthane@@@gmail...com> on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:22PM (#8905483) Journal
    This is of no surprise.

    In fact, since you mentioned tune ups I will relate a short tale.

    I owned a '97 Pontiac Grand Prix. At about 85k miles it was finally time for a tuneup, ok no problem. Took it to have it done, expected it to be expensive since I was having the work done by a mechanic after realizing I could not reach the rear bank of plugs.

    So that evening I go pick up my Grand Prix and find a $500 bill for the work, almost $300 of it was labor. I inquired as to why it was so high, apparently in order to get the three rear plugs out, it is required to unmount the engine mostly and tilt the thing forward. This wasn't surprising since the clearance between the back of the engine and the firewall was only a couple of inches at best, probably not even that.

    Little chance of my doing that in my home garage, that's for damn sure.

    I miss my '78 Chevy Malibu. Had a 305 engine in it and very easy to work on. Learned to work on cars with that one, too bad now a days you have to have a lot of time or equipment to work on cars.

    I won't even get into the nightmare that working on my '03 Jaguar X-Type would present if I were nutty enough to attempt it.

    It took them two and a half weeks to get a replacement part in for that because the car is still new enough that parts like what failed in mine are still scarce. Thankfully the issue in that case did not leave the car undriveable.
  • by ksheff ( 2406 ) * on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:22PM (#8905493) Homepage

    Based on the vehicles I see most of the time, I would say they care more about "that thing's got a hemi/v10/whatever" than if it gets 50mpg. If they got 1/2 of that, it must be when they are going downhill and have a tail wind.

  • by utahjazz ( 177190 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:25PM (#8905535)
    As these cars get more and more advanced its getting harder for doityourselfers to even attempt to modify or maintian them

    Yet, somehow it becomes easier to build/mod your own computer as they become more advanced.

    Too bad there isn't some 'Personal Car' platform.
    We currently have fairly easily customizable tires, exhaust, audio, glass, and various 'case mods'.

    What we need is user-interchangable chasis, engine, drive train, cab. That'd be cool.

  • by Lucidwray ( 300955 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:27PM (#8905569)
    I have to say. This is a total load of crap. This argument floats around all the time and its crap. Troubleshooting a new computer laden car is no different that toubleshooting a 68 VW. Any good mechanic will tell you, troubleshooting a problem is troubleshooting a problem. dosent matter if you work on the space shuttle or a toaster. Finding problems and solving them still follows the same basic rules.

    As far as pricing. Yes, new stuff is expensive. But I think being in the computer industry, most people around here know that. Remember 1x CD-Rom drives. or floppy disks. They were expensive too. HID Xenon lights are expensive now. But they used to be $10,000 a bulb when they were introduced. Time and acceptance will drop the price.

    Aluminum body work: there are currently 3 (well 2) cars for sale in the US that have an aluminum body. Acura NSX, Audi A8 and the now dead Prowler. The price on insurance for these cars reflects their different material. Aluminum body shop equipment is expensive because no one has it. And for good reason. There arent many cars that need it. That will change if more cars are built with aluminum skins. (probably not likley)

    People used this same argument when cars first started having computers in the early 80's. Any mechanic who cant fix a modern car with todays modern tools probably shouldnt be working on a car anyway. Im sure people bitched when cars started buring gasoline too....
  • Bitch bitch (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Natedog ( 11943 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:28PM (#8905580)
    "We're moving closer and closer to the disposable car," says Dan Bailey, an executive vice president at Carstar, the largest auto-body repair franchise in the United States.

    well duh! of course the auto repair industry is unhappy about this. I'm sure they aren't happy about any loss of business, whether it be to dealers or just better quality cars that don't need as much maintinence. Good riddance I say. Doesn't anyone remember when you could only expect 100-150k miles out of a car? How about severe body rust after only a few years (I live near the coast). How about all the independant repair shops that just rip people off (seems to have gotten better since the 80s).

    Also, so airbags are expensive? What's their point? Should we do away with them? I suppose it would be better if the teen didn't walk away from the accident -- yep, that would've been worth 30K. This reminds me of people that buy used or crappy 3rd world climbing equipment to save a few bucks.

    No thank you. I'll take my *advanced* car that requires a specially trained tech to work on...even if it is more expensive, at least it'll be fixed correctly. The tech can at least run the diagnostics checks and has training on common problems, etc. The independent shops just take wild guesses and start replacing things.
  • MX-5 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:29PM (#8905593)
    Well I hate to point out the obvious, but the buyer has a lot of choice among cars. You could buy a BMW M3 with Xenon headlamps, electronically-controlled valve timing, and a computer that works the clutch for you, and it just might be difficult to repair the damn thing. Or you could buy a Miata (MX-5 outside the USA) which is the sort of car the owner can maintain. There's hardly anything to break in a Miata, it gets good gas mileage, it pollutes gently, and it will whip the M3 on an autocross track.

    So if you bought the M3 don't go blaming BMW just because you forgot to figure in the cost of maintenance.

  • by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:31PM (#8905617) Homepage
    While I agree with some of the rants, there are enough logical holes in the article to make me wonder about how big the problem is.

    "Now Nissan and other automakers have started using taillights with multiple LEDs rather than a single inexpensive light bulb. The LEDs light faster in a panic stop to give drivers following more warning, but they're also more expensive to replace."

    Come on, the LEDs faster than incandescents? Perhaps the quantum state required to fire off a LED is a bit faster than the time needed to heat those electrons off the tungsten wire, but I would be awfully suprised if that turns out to help avoiding accidents.

    Part of the problem has nothing to do with the costs of the technology used to repair the damage. It's the cost to keep skilled employees fed, watered and insured. So whether they're pounding out steel or aluminum, it costs money.

    And who these days, fixes electronics parts. You replace the little buggers. Anybody out there doing mobo parts replacement? (this being /., I'm sure there are, but it's not a Usual Thing).

    And I love OBD (On Board Diagnostics). You never have to think! Just Replace(TM).

  • by swillden ( 191260 ) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:31PM (#8905622) Journal

    Newer cars are being treated like appliances rather than machines... It's sad.

    Depends on your point of view, I suppose.

    Personally, I think it's rather impressive. Back when everyone could work on their own car, everyone *had* to work on their own car, because cars needed lots of attention on a regular basis just to keep running. Modern automobiles have gotten so reliable that people fully expect them to run for 100,000+ miles without anything more than gas, oil changes and new tires and brakes. The day when driving a car daily meant you had to be able to troubleshoot problems is gone.

    It's sad for people who enjoy working on cars in their spare time, but for everyone else, who just wants to get from point A to point B, reliably, comfortably, safely and in whatever style they prefer, it's great.

    I like not having to fiddle with my cars; it frees up time I can spend fiddling with computers, dive gear, my nifty new GPS receiver, etc.

  • Re:FOSS autos (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:31PM (#8905623)
    Why can't I just download an OSS ROM and flash it myself?

    Why can't you just disconnect the battery?
  • Car Reliability (Score:3, Insightful)

    by silverhalide ( 584408 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:33PM (#8905664)
    It is true that cars are harder to work on nowadays, but back up for a second and recall how unreliable cars used to be. Nowadays, it's not uncommon for a vehicle to go for 100,000 miles with zero major problems. That was not very common 20 years ago.

    Just for example, there are lots of things that used to have to be performed on vehicles just to keep them driveable:
    -Adjust engine timing. Don't need to do that anymore, computer takes care of it.
    -Clean the carburator. Clean the points and distributor. All of that's gone with electronic fuel injection.
    -The whole "tune up" procedure is obsolete, as the engine computer keeps fuel mixtures, timings, and environmental conditions in top performance at all times.

    Granted, you can still perform the generic maintenance you're used to, such as changing fluids, etc. Cars have become easier to troubleshoot as far as sensors go. Simply hook up the diagnositc tool, and it tells you what sensor is broken or what's acting up. Whip out the shop manual, and it'll tell you exactly where to look.

    Modern cars are documented so well, anyone who gets manufacturer support can work on the cars.

    The only thing changing is that shadetree mechanics are getting pushed out of the game, but that's inevitable with the level of technology. I don't hear anyone complaining they can't swap out individual memory chips of thier PCs or solder parts onto their motherboards anymore to change options. Hell, you don't even have to set jumpers anymore. It's part of the evolution of the technology.

    Also, the article is slightly wrong about Xenon headlamps, the whole system costs $3,000, but the bulbs themselves are only a few hundred bucks. Granted, anyone who owns a vehicle with those headlights is highly unlikely to be doing his own maintenance to begin with.
  • by Abcd1234 ( 188840 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:33PM (#8905676) Homepage
    Because cars with more advanced engine controll computers will get better gas milage and pollute less

    Sure, but at what cost?? Let's suppose you buy a new car that costs, oh, $15,000 to build, but breaks down in, say, 5 years, leaving it unrepairable. Do you *really* think, in 5 years, you could conserve $15,000 worth of fuel over the lifetime of that car in order to justify it's outright disposal? Moreover, do you think it's increased efficiency can counter-balance the environment impacts of build that car, disposing of it and building a new one?
  • by BCW2 ( 168187 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:35PM (#8905715) Journal
    Another unforseen problem with the moron protection lights, beside that every one now ignores them.

    Keep stupid people from the consequenses of their actions and all you do is dilute the gene pool.
  • by jhoffoss ( 73895 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:37PM (#8905744) Journal
    Also consider the amount of pollution that went into the air forty years ago to make that classic car. The process may have been simpler, but pollution control was an afterthought at best, in factories and in the cars. I won't buy the statement that it's more environmentally expensive to make and drive a zero-emissions car than it was to make and drive a '57 Belair.
  • Safe vs. Cheap (Score:3, Insightful)

    by azadrozny ( 576352 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:41PM (#8905817)
    I for one don't mind (too much) paying extra for some added safety features. The kid who fliped his parents BMW should be thankful he walked away. 10-15 years ago, that probably would not have been the case. I am sure that some of the reduction in traffic fatalities can be attributed to simple things such as wearing seatbelts and child safety seats. But most of the reduction is due to the fact that cars are better designed to protect the occupant. Safety cages, crumple zones and air bags are expensive to repair/replace but if the worst part is an increase in my insurance rates then I consider it a fair exchange.

    Cars had better get safer, because drivers sure aren't.

  • by Unregistered ( 584479 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:41PM (#8905821)
    But the Belair already exists. The damage is done, it cant be undone.

    However, i think the best argument against worring about emissions of classics is that all the classics in the city don't produce as many pollutants as one old dump truck that is emempt from pollution laws becasue it pollutes so much.
  • by stangbat ( 690193 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:42PM (#8905841)
    A lot of car maintenance is still easy to do, perhaps even easier than before. Belts still need changed and a single serpentine belt is a godsend. Oil changes and filter changes are still the same. Changing disc brake pads is still pretty easy. Changing coolant, no big difference. And fuel injection means no more messing with carburetors and crazy vacuum hoses (thank God). If you are willing to get your hands dirty you can save a bunch of money. But as the article points out, a lot of stuff can't be "fixed" anymore.

    A lot of people look under the hood and instantly get intimidated. My view is that despite how it looks, the basic parts are still there as they have been for decades. You just have to have the desire and interest to figure it out. With that said, I do see why people often don't want to mess with it. It takes work, you get dirty, and you can get hurt.

    Tons of people open a computer case, see a complicated jumble of wires and chips, and say "I can never understand this". The average Slashdot reader thinks this stuff is easy. Same thing for cars. The bottom line is determining where you want to spend your time and efforts.

    Personally, I do as much maintenance myself as I can. I even do some major repairs, but I make sure to do research before hand and decide if I'll be opening a can of worms doing it myself. So far I have been lucky and not really bit off more than I can chew. But then again I may have a better assesment of my abilities than a lot of do it yourselfers. I save a lot of money, and it is an excuse for me to buy new tools (i.e. toys).
  • by kpharmer ( 452893 ) * on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:43PM (#8905857)
    sometimes old technology kicks butt. I've got a pair of 70s IH Scouts that I bought for a few thousand dollars years ago.

    They're now over 25 years old, are driven every day, and never break down (well almost).

    Advantages
    - initial cost was very low
    - labor is cheap & easy
    - parts are very cheap and readily available
    - most components are extra-heavy-duty, and so last hundreds of thousands of miles
    - seven passenger convertible
    - can use it to pull stumps on the weekend then commute topless during the week!
    - gets better mileage than a new truck
    - more fun to drive than most new trucks

    Disadvantages
    - no cup-holders
    - no airbags
    - no cup-holders
    - loud on the highway
    - even with extra emissions equipment, it isn't as clean or efficient as a new economy-oriented vehicle.

    And the best part? After a day of listening to vendors describe how their shiney new product has made everything we're using from 2003 so obsolete...getting into a vehicle designed in the early sixties that still outperforms many new vehicles on the road. Screw disposable, build something amazing and folks will use it for decades.
  • Here, here. Most of this article is typical future shock and FUD. For one thing, the majority of the more expensive parts on a car are not likely to break, and are even LESS likely to break because of the overengineering.

    Which would you prefer -- a set of steel control arms with a 3 year life at a cost of $75 plus labor each time, or a set of aluminum control arms with a ten year life at a cost of $150 plus labor?

    Overall, you're saving $75 if you keep the car ten years, and $150 if you keep the car 8 or 9.

    Incidentally, this is one of the things that fuels the "American cars are crap" sentiment that is common among many people. Often, American cars use less expensive parts that are also less expensive to repair. Foreign cars are more likely to be made of precision parts, with a massive cost. A new clutch kit for a Ford Taurus is around $300. A new clutch kit for my Passat is clost to $1000.

    One solution, btw, is not to abandon the better quality parts, but to create an open parts standard. The more cars that use a specific part, the more generic offerings there are and the cheaper those offerings become. There's also more parts available from used auto parts catalogues.
  • by elandal ( 9242 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:43PM (#8905865) Homepage
    For me, a car is a way to get from place A to place B comfortably, economically, and in reasonable time.

    In last year I've opened the hood a few times: to add water (and some liquid stuff they sell at gas stops) to windshield cleaning thingie. If there's anything except adding fuel or the cleaning solution, the car goes to a repair shop. Well, changing tires is done in another shop as I know the people working there and know they're going to sell me good tires for reasonable price.

    I don't want to open the hood. I don't want to do any repairs. I want to move between locations comfortably, economically, when I want to (as opposed to when the busses/trains go, although I do choose the train quite often).

    For these reasons, I'm not going to buy a 20 year old "real car" but rather a new one that will work without trouble for a few years again.
  • by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:44PM (#8905868) Homepage
    Most, if not all, the technical advance in auto manufacturing has to do with government emissions regulations. People asked the government to demand better air quality and emissions from cars. This is the result. As always, you can't have it both ways (cheap easy to work on car vs. car that get's good mileage and has low emissions).
  • by 74nova ( 737399 ) <jonnbell@@@gmail...com> on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:44PM (#8905876) Homepage Journal
    but that doesnt matter. the car has already been made. his point is that if he drives his classic, he wont need another car to be made for him.

    will you buy the statement that its more environmentally expensive to make and drive a (near)zero-emissions car than to not make said car and drive another that was already made 40 years ago(thus eliminating the ability to prevent its manufacturing)? if i drive older cars with new fuel injected engines, i eliminate the need for new cars to be made for me. i think thats better.

    whether the original statement that its cleaner to drive an old car than to make a new one is debateable. my point is that the cost of making the old car is irrelevant because it cant be eliminated while the cost of making a new one can.
  • by RetroGeek ( 206522 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:45PM (#8905887) Homepage
    it also makes you a better driver

    No it does not.

    "features" might allow less skill required for certain things, but it does NOT make you a better driver.
  • by composer777 ( 175489 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:47PM (#8905915)
    Why would you blame technology where blaming market economics makes more sense? Automakers are motivated by one thing, profits, and since it's more profitable to make disposable cars, that's the direction they will go. This has little to do with technology. So, perhaps you guys should quit titling your articles, "Technology makes cars disposable" and switch to a more honest assessment of the problem, which is "Market Economics makes cars disposable". In fact, the majority of the problems in the tech industry is related to the haphazard, profit motivated nature of market economics. It's a very short term kind of thinking, where somehow it makes sense to create a bunch of junk that only last 10 years. It's what I like to refer to as innovation of garbage, where the primary motivation is create products that head for the nearest landfill as quickly as possible so that another one can be sold. In a sane society, technology would be used to minimize effort, create efficient products that last, etc., in an insane society, technology is used to create extra work (extra jobs), products that fill land fills as quickly as possible, and in general, waste everyone's time. Yay capitalism. In the long run, we will need to come up with a better system than any that are around today, otherwise, it's only going to get worse.
  • by chammel ( 19734 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:48PM (#8905920)
    It also pollutes the air more than any Hummer in production.
  • by poptones ( 653660 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:50PM (#8905953) Journal
    A friend of mine drives a '65 Chevy Nova as his weekend cruiser. He also has a '65 Mustang and two '34 Pickups he installed with modern V6 powerplants and transmissions. His one "modern" car is a ten year old Caravan.

    Lots of folks are driving around in 20-30 year old cars. Contrast with this: I recently had a 1995 Lincoln Town Car with one of those "state of the art" 4.6l modular v-8 engines go tits up. Spent a week screwing with it because I'm too cheap to pay the dealership to work on it - replaced a bunch of junkyard type parts - pip crank sensor ($20), ign module ($400 new, BTW), fuel pump, filter, etc. Nothing helped and I didn't have a compression gauge that would reach down to those spark plug holes buried deep in the heads.

    So we hauled it 50 miles to the nearest dealership and left it with them - two days and $150 later I find out "it's dead." Simple as that - the fucking thing is dead. A new engine is thousands of dollars and even repairs are incredibly expensive because of all the labor involved to remove things like cylinder heads (all those valvetrain parts are now on the heads, so you have chains and gears and high pressure oil passages through head gaskets). And the engine has, like, 30PSI compression on all the cylinders but two. Why? Don't know and it'd cost several hundred dollars just to find out how extensive the damage is. Meanwhile a USED '95 Towne Car is like $3000, which means it's cheaper to send this one to the junkyard than to fix it.

    End result? Now instead of having a ten year old car on the road after extensive repairs, it'll be a ten year old car permanently off the road. One less used automonbile in the chain to support with aftermarket parts, one less used car on the road to provide an alternative to a NEW CAR PURCHASE.

    And that's where we're going. Just like those shiny new computers that die a month after their three year warranty runs out and cost as much to fix as buying a whole new computer, we'll end up with cars that are so expensive to fix it's cheaper to buy a NEW ONE. It's not about selling "parts" - manufacturers don't make nearly as much of cataloging, shipping and reselling a $400 part as they make off selling a whole new car. It's all part of planned obsolesence - not just of cars and computers, but an attempt to make obsolete "antiquated" concepts like quality and craftsmanship. Replace art with graphic design; intellect with economics.

  • by elandal ( 9242 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:54PM (#8906014) Homepage
    I already treat mobo + CPU + RAM as a single package. Soldering them together wouldn't make much of a difference to me - assuming combinations I want would be available for sale.

    If I want a new CPU (at leats 50% speed increase, otherwise it just isn't worth the trouble), I need to get a new mobo because the old mobo won't support the new CPU. And then I need to get new RAM as the old RAM isn't compatible with the new mobo. Or is just so slow that I wouldn't realize the speed increase from CPU change really.
    At that point I think about moving the old comp as is to some supportive role (replace old firewall, fileserver, mailserver, or something). So, I'll look at the oldest comp to replace that with the one being replaced currently, and notice that the 7 year old case won't take the new mobo formfactor anymore, and would need new PSU anyway, and so on.

    So, I end up buying pretty much a whole new computer unless I'm willing to ditch mobo + CPU + RAM that's at least twice as fast as the oldest one still in use.
  • by Absurd Being ( 632190 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:56PM (#8906052) Journal
    You ever play FPS's? Picture the lag from the FPS while you're doing an intensive procedure like car repair or surgery, and imagine 300-400ms lag on the operation. Not a very cleanly done procedure. So no outsourcing yet, it has to be on roughly the same continent. Plus the robotics won't respond perfectly as a human hand does, the human operating the machine doesn't get tactile feedback, etc.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 19, 2004 @12:57PM (#8906063)
    I've noticed several posters grumping about the cost of a brand new car and how it's at least a 500% markup over "cost", and how the automobile industry is just pure evil for trying to "corner the market on repairs", but let's not forget that our own industry (whether you're a "hardware person" or, like me, a "software person") is guilty of many of the same sins -- no, just because "everybody else is doing it, too!" doesn't make it "right" (I won't accept that answer from my kids any more than my Dad would've accepted it from me...) but there are some dynamics at work here that are pretty easy to see once we get past the "ouch" factor generated by an ever-increasing cost of owning transportation.

    1. Labor is expen$ive! -- There's a common misconception that modern automobiles are "mass produced on automated assembly lines", and while the current state-of-the-art assembly line is more automated (and more cool to watch) than ever, there's still a LOT of touching by human hands going on. Add to that the complication that no matter how automated an assembly plant gets they're still going to be contractually required to employ a certain number of people (whether you're a union fan or foe, you can't deny that they're the ones who really run the show) and at the same time shift more and more of their workload onto those machines/robots.
      Technology is expen$ive -- All those robots, controllers, lift-assist devices, etc. aren't cheap , plus they're not servicable by just anybody (a lot of heavy equipment sales contracts include exclusive service contracts -- where do you think the auto industry learned the trick in the first place? They're just aware that no ordinary consumer in their right mind would buy their car from someone who "held them over the barrel" on the maintenance!)
      Tech people are expen$ive -- (this is where many of us come in) all that engineering (mechanical, electrical, and computational) expertise (not just directly employed by the auto industry but also employed by their suppliers, with the costs getting passed-on to you-know-where...) comes at a price; a high and ever-increasing one.
      Doing business is expen$ive -- Government regulations, public expectations, employee relations, and a myriad of other lumps in the morass that has become business in America make for an extremely costly environment to manufacture just about anything. Let's say, for example, that the media gets ahold of the fact that your automobile company's R&D department used an "open source" CAD system to develop your latest release's state-of-the-art passive restraint system. Regardless of how you or I view "open source" software, the majority of the "unwashed masses" out there still feel more comfortable with some big company's "deep pockets" standing behind a product than a dedicated cadre of nearly fanatical enthusiasts, so voilà, instant class-action suit (and then we're not talking about the majority of the "unwashed masses" out there any more, just a carefully selected 12 of them...)


    As a result of the points above (and a good many more than can be typed here with one hand while I eat my lunch with the other), the costs for equipment, supplies, software, education, facilities, even the electricity and water for nearly any major manufacturing facility are driven up, up and UP. "Cost"?!?! Yeah.
  • by laigle ( 614390 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @01:04PM (#8906155)
    The major issue with high-tech components in cars is they can't be repaired, only replaced. If your transmission breaks, a low pay tech can figure that out and make the appropriate repairs, or get new parts then send the current ones off for rebuilding.

    If your ABS computer breaks, you need a new ABS computer and the old one is scrap. Not really hard to diagnose because of the onboard computer diangostics, not hard to fix. But it is expensive as hell. It leads to a market in designing interfaces for the onboard diagnostic computers, but that's an outsourced job assuming an American company is even making the interface to begin with.
  • by hopemafia ( 155867 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @01:07PM (#8906191)
    "Well, she moved to a location where they are illegal."

    I find this hard to believe.... Is turning on your regular headlights during the day also illegal there? I drive with my lights on 24/7. IMHO daytime running lights are one of the simplest and most effective safety options available, and it's a pity they aren't more common. What could possible be bad about your car being easier to see?
  • Are we to believe (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 19, 2004 @01:07PM (#8906207)
    Mechanics are some how "less smart" than other individuals, or conversely that people in IT are some how smarter. I'm a programmer and most programmers I know have no clue what is under the hook. Ask 1000 programmers to identify the carburator, or the distributor. How many do you think know the answer to that? Better yet, give a IT guy a manual for building the transmission and engine. How many could do it by themselves correclty on the first try without screwing something up. Modern engines have thousands of parts. Building one and tuning it is not trivial or simple. It takes real talent.

    Hell, ask an IT geek to weld some steel and see how sound that weld is. Like technology getting more sophisticated will some how spell the doom of mechanics. Mechanics will change and evolve just like all the IT guys getting replaced with off-shore workers.

  • by composer777 ( 175489 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @01:08PM (#8906214)
    Setting aside the landfill situation for a moment. Why would you want to make things more difficult, more miserable, and at the same time consume more resources. This to me seems like a win, lose, lose, lose situation.
    1. Automakers win.
    2. Workers lose since they have to work harder.
    3. The environment loeses since there is more junk being created.
    4. More resources are consumed to make those cars, not to mention all the extra driving that is done. etc.

    A friend of mine wondered how we would justify feeding people for free if technology replaced their jobs. My response is that in a sane society, you would simply weigh the cost of the gas that they would consume driving to work everyday, vs the output of a machine doing that job. Then you would look at the overall budget and realize that it would be cheaper just to let them do whatever they want and not come to work, than to make them burn up several gallons of gas (and other resources) a week driving their Ford Explorer to work, all so that they can be treated like a robot. There are a lot of jobs like that, jobs that aren't really needed, working in factories that are beyond obsolete, but are kept around to keep a lid on the violence that would surely ensue if half of all Americans were suddenly jobless. The problem with the current situation is that we are burning up a lot of resources to keep the illusion of market economics alive. We could just admit that it's all a sham, be done with it, and simplify things greatly, minimizing work, resource consumption, the whole ball of wax. The problem is, giving the little people all that free time would be dangerous to those in power. So, instead, the illusion must be maintained.
  • by laigle ( 614390 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @01:13PM (#8906283)
    Of course, the long failure life leads to a very annoying problem for those of us with older cars: by the time something does break, you can't always get a replacement. There's always going to be someone producing or remanufacturing old metal parts. But if a computer IC burns out and the manufacturer gave up on it five years ago, you're SOL.
  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @01:16PM (#8906326) Homepage
    Cars won't be sitting around piled up ten to the dozen or in landfills, they're going to be snapped up by entities who want the materials.

    wow you are wrong.

    those "scrap cars" are a goldmine for smart mechanics and car owners. those $3000.00 XENON HId headlamps can be bought from a junkyard out of a car that was in a nasty side impact or rear impact accident for $100-200 dollars. Computer for that Pontiac? $250.00 compared to $1500.00 at the dealer. how about simple stuff like the alarm keyfobs and electronic ID keys? the fealer quoted me $155.00 for a new key + alarm/entry keyfob. I was able to get a working keyfob + the secret proceedure to get it working at a local scrapyard for $15.00 and he was selling the key blanks for $10.00 each and had them cut at a local keyshop for $5.00

    car scrapyards are worth much more as a parts source than as ground up scrap meatal, rubber and plastic.

    In fact right now with the "down" economy.. the scrapyards with cars stacked up are making the most money and their business is booming as people are stretching their dollar every way they can.
  • Funny... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lythander ( 21981 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @01:20PM (#8906383)
    As a sysadmin/netadmin/IT/MIS guy all of my career, I've always described my job as being not too much different from a mechanic, except I stay less clean and I apparently get paid less.

    And working on my 1969 Baracuda is MUCH more fun lately. Maybe I should change jobs...
  • by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @01:26PM (#8906453)
    It also pollutes the air more than any Hummer in production.

    If the Hummers just barely meet federal standards, then no. I've had numerous '80s cars that tested to be well within the federal guidelines for new cars. Just because it is old does not mean that it is dirty.
  • by langeland ( 607444 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @01:26PM (#8906464)
    Yes, manufacturing, maintaining and selling cars is expensive. That is three issues. But you forgot to add the developing of new cars.

    We (the consumers) demand cars with ever more advanced technologies installed. Those technologies don't just appear out of the air - they are developed just like any software are developed. Development costs! The car companies have to gain profit for this development overhead - and the scheduled maintinance checks seem right on target for that.
  • by agallagh42 ( 301559 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @01:27PM (#8906483) Homepage
    To really make people safer drivers, you should remove all that safety gear, and add a 6 inch sharpened steel spike to the center of the steering wheel. That ought to be a good incentive to drive a little more carefully :)

    Really, all those electronic driving aids make it possible to pay less attention to your driving, without increasing your risk of death. Several of the items you listed do nothing to help avoid accidents, only to help survivability when you do smash into something.

    Really, what we need on this continent (N.A.), is mandatory advanced driver training and skid school. There are far too many people out there on the roads that have no idea where the performance limits of their cars are, or what to do when they pass those limits.
  • Re:transmission (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fishbowl ( 7759 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @01:37PM (#8906611)
    Depends on what you mean by "sports car".

    Gear boxes and engines are spent routinely at the quarter mile strip. Every suspension part that can break, will break on a rally course.

    A true sports car should allow you to operate it to the breaking point, it should not limit your envelope for your safety or to keep you from breaking something. It should let you outspeed your brakes, it should let you oversteer, and it should let you put moure torque into the drivetrain than it can handle.

    That comes with the understanding that if you break it by doing so, it's your fault, of course.
  • by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @01:38PM (#8906622) Homepage Journal
    I'd rather have an older, less advanced car that I actually have a chance of fixing. Who needs all this new car technology anyways?

    All of this high priced technology is primarily about one thing. Fuel efficience/Emmissions requirements. It's an impossible choice really. We can have cars that we can fix affordably or we can have maximum fuel efficiency with minimal pollution.

    I have two automobiles, one is 11 years old and the other is 18 years old. I can fix most of the things on them myself. Looking under the hood of a car that was made in the mid 90s or after lets me know that I don't know as much about cars as I *think* I do.

    Using an O2 sensor to alter the fuel mixture/spark advance is something that makes sense to me. Using an catalytic converter to reduce CO makes sense to me. Some of these new emmissions controls are just beyond me.

    LK
  • by micromoog ( 206608 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @01:43PM (#8906695)
    Electricity has a natural price cap: about where personal power generation becomes feasible. I can't drill for oil in my yard; I can install solar panels on my roof (for enough money).
  • by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig@hogger.gmail@com> on Monday April 19, 2004 @01:44PM (#8906703) Journal
    This to me seems like a win, lose, lose, lose situation.
    1. Automakers win.
    2. Workers lose since they have to work harder.
    3. The environment loeses since there is more junk being created.
    4. More resources are consumed to make those cars, not to mention all the extra driving that is done. etc.

    This is irrelevent.

    The only thing that counts is that the CEO gets the fattest bonus and golden parachute, and, accessorly, that the company stock rises as high as possible.

    Everything else is fiddlestick poppycock.
  • by elandal ( 9242 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @01:54PM (#8906836) Homepage
    Nope. It's part of the yearly checkup at the repair shop. My yearly kilometers are low enough that a year passes sooner than the kilometer count between required checkups.

    I do KNOW how to check / add / change oil. But why would I do that when it's one of the items on the "yearly checkup" list? I do actually know a lot more about cars than I care for. I could probably do the routine maintenance on an old car if I really had to, and had some reference material to refresh my memory with. I just don't want to.

    Similarly, some years back I did a lot of computer maintenance. But these days I design software, and the computers are a tool (as opposed to target of the work), so I'd rather have them "just work". I've got better things to use my time on than to repair a PC when I can have the PC fixed at a fair price by people whose jobs' target is the PC.

    As I pay for someone else to fix my PCs (where I could do that myself too, thank you), I can spend the time eg. with family, friends, or even earning money with which to pay for the repairs.

    Now, do you do your hair / beard / moustache yourself? Cook from real raw materials (as opposed to fastfood, restaurants, or cook using almost ready ingredients)? Sew your own suits? And so on.
    Some people eat out almost always, some cook themselves. Some buy their clothes, some sew themselves. Some fix their own cars or computers, some have others fix them.
    It's just a choice about what you do yourself and what not. Nobody can do everything these days. Really. And I like cooking more than fixing a car. I like designing software more than diagnosing broken PCs.
  • Re:Actually.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ValourX ( 677178 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @01:57PM (#8906862) Homepage

    Totally disagree. The terrorists in Al-Qaida and the Palestinian groups have made it widely known that they hate the Jewish people. Most of their terrorist acts these days are because of American support of Isreal. Bin Laden's biggest motivator was that the dirty white American christians were in his precious holy land. They're intolerant, racist, anti-semitic bastards.

    Popular opinion seems to be that the primary cause for this ignorance and violence is lack of proper education and lack of gainful employment. Since the poor people have nothing to do and can only learn from fundamentalist Muslim "clerics," they become terrorists. You don't see any rich kids blowing themselves up to kill innocents that they have never met yet hate passionately.

    Anyway, back to oil. Not every middle-eastern nation has oil to sell (or even use). The US has a large amount of undrilled oil but it's hard to get to and too expensive to drill right now, for the most part. One of my best friends owns oil rights to some property in Wellsville NY and used to spend every day out in the oil fields. It's dirty, rigorous work, and although you can make money drilling oil you can't make money paying someone else to drill it for you. In Iraq and Saudi-Arabia the oil is easy to get to and close to the surface; in NY and PA, the oil is far down and underneath a lot of bedrock. Then there are environmental regulations and laws and taxes and special equipment costs for the deep drilling, etc.

    Oddly, most of the laborers in Qatar (another oil-rich country) are foreigners from neighboring poor countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan where there is no money, no oil, no work and no hope. Even the people of Qatar tend to discriminate against "local foreigners" (see National Geographic from 2003... er... last spring? It has an arabian guy on the cover). The culture of the middle east is simply an intolerant one.

    -Jem
  • Re:Actually.... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Diabolus777 ( 663144 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @02:03PM (#8906939)
    So, their point is legitimate. They kill to regain their land. Why do they have to call the rest of the world "infidels" and hide behind god whenever they can? Their position would get much more sympathy if they didn't use religion in such a manner in my humble opinion.
  • by BigBlockMopar ( 191202 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @02:18PM (#8907098) Homepage

    Aside from the power used, it's a cyclic process with minimal wastage. The rubber, plastic, metal can be reused for whatever purpose necessary. It has to be economically viable if these companies are willing to lay out so much green for these 'car eaters'.

    Wow.... Uhhh, yeah. So you've got a Honda Civic or some other piece of junk which only lasts 7 years. You crush it, transport it, shred it, smelt it, transport the ingot, re-melt for cold rolling, roll it, stamp it, weld the stampings back together, paint it, and sell it as a new car.

    Okay... Why don't you try looking up the specific heat of iron and the energy content of coal. Sit back and tell me how many tons of coal you have to burn each time you melt an equivalent quantity of iron and steel to a car.

    It's horrifically wasteful and terrible for the environment. In fact, you'd have to drive a poorly-tuned old gas guzzler for 22 years (on top of its regular lifespan) to make up the environmental damage caused by recycling it.

    Buy a good and *durable* car that is easy to work on - not some Japanese tinfoil crap. Wash it and wax it every week. Change the oil every 4,000km or three months. Keep the engine tuned up, and when it needs rings and bearings, do it. And drive the thing for as long as you can - I'm thinking 40+ years. The newer more environmentally-"friendly" cars aren't.

    My automotive stable includes a 1970 Dodge Dart with a Slant-6. Fits my 6'4" tall body comfortably, starts every morning with the legendary Chrysler gear-reduction "dive bomber" starter motor and a satisfying click-click-click of the solid lifters, gets 28MPG and blows as clean on the emissions test as a 1990-spec. And forget the $3000 HID headlights; mine are $4.99 each at Wal*Mart.

    Can't buy a new car like that these days.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @02:24PM (#8907158)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by wikkiewikkie ( 596205 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @02:30PM (#8907214) Homepage
    All right! Way to eat up the spin the automobile manufacturers feed you! The truth is average fuel economy for new vehicles has been on the decline since 1980. Most of the mainstream vehicles which do get good fuel economy nowadays are using conventional small displacement engines with fuel injection technology similar to that first used in the early 80's.
  • Re:Bic Cars (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 19, 2004 @02:31PM (#8907220)
    Interesting point. I drive a fairly old, fairly safe saab. I can easily afford a mercedes, but I don't buy one because there are far, far better things to do with my money. Getting one from A to B is all a car needs to do (for me). However, the $39,000 I saved has gone towards countless guitars, studio gear, computers, a piano, a canal boat... and I still have a shitpile of cash left.

    You don't want people thinking - I don't know - that you're such a lowlife you can't afford a decent car. I find it hard to follow that kind of logic. Are people who make serious judgements about you based on what car you drive your kind of people? Maybe so. I don't want people thinking I would waste such a *useful* quantity of money on something that, to anyone with their head screwed on, is little more than a utility.
  • by Dirk Pitt ( 90561 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @02:35PM (#8907280) Homepage
    your compsci degree is obsolete right after you get your diploma

    This is so popular to say, but I totally disagree. Calculus doesn't change. Data Structures doesn't change. Formal Languages doesn't change. The fundamentals of good software design do not change.

    There's nothing you learn in Computer Science that you can't teach yourself.

    Oh, I agree with that -- same with nuclear engineering, accounting, writing, and musical performance. So what? Many people go to school because it gives them a head start in their chosen career. Many employers will throw out your resume without a degree. Most people want to be an 'employee' for a while before they become an 'employer'. Ergo, get a degree. The smartest, though, go to school so they can saturate themselves in an environment of their choice, to study with the brightest people in their field. You can't get that by locking yourself in your bedroom with 'MySQL for Dummies'. An architect or artist gets critiqued a thousand times for their work before they're paid to design their first building or play their first concert. Why should a software project or IT infrastructure be any different?

    he was telling me that most of the people running such businesses don't have degrees

    Yep, I too know a lot of uneducated IT people making big money doing mediocre work. If that makes you happy, by all means -- but I'm glad to see that you're not giving up college. There's more there than you're giving it credit for, or you're going to the wrong uni.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 19, 2004 @02:37PM (#8907294)
    you mean those cafe standards that most cars can be exempt from. a pt cruiser is exempt, because its a "truck"

    so are SUV's. the EPA is truley useless when it comes to its job. (how about that reformulated gas, lower mileage, higher worse pollution, and it ruins your engine)
  • by duffbeer703 ( 177751 ) * on Monday April 19, 2004 @02:38PM (#8907320)
    As far as I'm concerned, if you cannot pay for a car in three years, you don't need to own it.

    I was talking to a buddy of mine who got laid off and ended up selling cars for a short time. He never ceased to be shocked by idiots with good credit making $30k/yr working retail buying $35k SUVs with 6 year loans!

    By the time they finished buying accessories and ripoff extended warranties, these people could have bought a more reasonable car new with the same payment and a 4 year loan!
  • Re:Bic Cars (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rmezzari ( 245108 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @02:49PM (#8907444)
    Tip: Dump the whore ASAP. If this is the kind of thing that she digs, then probably she is not worth it.

    Does she at least work to pay for crap like this or the sucker (you) do all the hard work so she can spend it?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 19, 2004 @03:36PM (#8907962)
    Yes, cars are more complicated, but for the first time in history, machines with moving parts are more reliable than those without. The average PC is less reliable than the average car, and given a choice, I think most people would rather have a reliable vehicle than a simple one requiring more maintenance.


    The problem is when one of the electronics systems on your car goes out in 15 years then, as with a PC of that age, you're most likely screwed and will have to scrap the car. The point a lot of people here have made is that if older, less fuel efficient cars can last much longer - because out of production metal parts are much easier to replace than out of production ICs - then how much better off are we with newer cars in terms of saving resources and preventing pollution?

    Personally, I can see the benefit of having the powertrain with electronic control but I prefer to have computers limited to that area. From my perspective, the question is "Why do I need this to have computer input?" rather than "Why shouldn't we put computers in everything?" E.g., cars coming with variable power steering almost always get poor reviews for feel and generally can't match the feel of a Lotus Elise's steering rack with no power steering at all (or the Focus RS/Ford GT steering rack with power assist). These days mostly useless, occasionally detrimental, computer interference in cars seems to be a main selling gimmick. It not only can hurt the driving experience but it will definitely hurt the cars' long term usefulness. Just look at BMW iDrive - the bane of many a driver, already having at least one instance of trapping an occupant inside their own car until a passerby saw the situation and broke a window to let them out. Imagine how unmaintainable that system is going to be in 20 years.
  • by Blimey85 ( 609949 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @04:07PM (#8908346)
    I think you missed a key bit of info. The parent was not talking about a newer Dodge but one from back when cars were built to last. What you say is true about modern Dodges being heaps o' shite. But back in the day...
  • by a24061 ( 703202 ) * on Monday April 19, 2004 @04:18PM (#8908474)
    In the UK, some environmentalists advocate measures to encourage motorists to get rid of their old, polluting "bangers" and buy newer models with better emissions and mileage.

    On the other hand, I'm sure that a new car produces a lot of pollution before it's even started -- because of the manufacturing processes (plastics, steel, aluminium, etc.). (I've even heard criticism of requiring catalytic converters because the metallurgy produces a lot of pollution -- although I personally believe this comes from cranks who think that catalytic converters reduce their power and "performance"). And of course disposing of old cars produces pollution too.

    So where's the balance?

  • by hal2814 ( 725639 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @04:55PM (#8908852)
    I think this article needs to calm down from its panic mode. Disposable cars will not be the result of making cars more expensive to build. I don't think that the author has ever dealt with an insurance company.

    The car mentioned throughout a good part of the article is BMW. I've owned two BMWs in the past. I also had a friend who owned a BMW. We always assumed that if one of us wrecked our car, the insurance company would total it out. It turned out to be true in his case. In my case, they didn't total it out but there was only paint damage. (Both of my BMWs died peacefully of old age.)

    My point is that insurance companies will not gamble on a few thousand dollars when they can just give you the car's current value and still make money selling the car off to a surplus broker. Any car with a high resale value will a target for premature totalling out, even without expensive components because:

    $pay_you_off_money - $get_from_wholesale_buyer > $cost_to_fix_car

    I can gaurantee you that if BMWs start getting totaled out over airbag costs too frequently, somebody is going to start manufacturing (relatively) cheap aftermarket airbags so that car dealers can snatch up these "totaled" cars from the insurance companies and turn a nice profit reselling them. If not, then it will be the BMW dealerships who snatch these cars back up and refit them with airbags since they get a break in price.

    Also, I imagine that somebody is going to figure out how to fashion a steel bracket to hang their radiator from in new F-150s once theirs breaks and they learn that a factory replacement costs $300.

    And don't forget that all of these new expensive components will come down in price over time and some car companies will not use the parts until they are cheap. Just look at Fuel Injection, Power Steering, Anti-Lock Brakes, etc...
  • by Buran ( 150348 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @05:17PM (#8909059)
    I've seen the same report that you probably did. And it does make a lot of sense and a lot of the problem probably is explainable by the tendency of humans to look at anything new or different - we're innately curious and anything unexpected gets investigated, whether or not it's detrimental to do so. Odd light of a strange color (xenons aren't really all that blue - they just look like they are compared to the yellowish tinge of filament-based lamps) falls into the category of "strange, needs to be looked at, is it going to hurt me or can I ignore it?".

    This gradually changes over time as a new object becomes more and more common, and in fact, given enough time, what was once the norm later becomes unusual - who turns their head to look anymore at a diesel locomotive as a train goes by? It's the chuffing, steaming, pumping smoky steam locomotives that make us stop and stare these days. But ask your grandmother or grandfather which is more unusual, and they might tell you that it's the diesels that are "newfangled contraptions".

    In other words, at some point sufficiently far in the future, most cars will have blue-tinged headlamp beams and we will actually look more at halogen headlamps because a car with the old-style halogens will be a classic collector's item, or just sufficiently different from the typical design practices of that time. It's already starting to happen - you can get HID headlamps on cars that are very close to entry level.

    I have fog lamps on my car (though they are OEM units) and I plan to get a HID retrofit - they're not available from the factory on this car in the US - since I've spoken with people who have HIDs on their cars and looked at the cars myself and found that they do increase visibility quite a bit. However, I have done several things that most people DO NOT DO (whether through ignorance, laziness, or "it works better if I ignore that advice") which leads to some, but not all, of the current furor:

    - Headlamps follow the European standard - they are engineered to focus light on the road and not scatter it around like DOT headlamps do; yes, that's right -- outdated lighting standards are largely to blame!

    - The headlamps have been properly aimed and the aim checked, including looking at the car at night from the position of an oncoming driver - this should be done from time to time as vibration and road conditions can knock the lights out of alignment

    - The headlights are equipped with electrical levelers that allow them to be aimed downward if the back of the car is weighed down with a heavy load - this is a must-have in Europe if you have HIDs, but not in the US - again, outdated requirements

    The car also has fog/driving lights and a rear fog light.

    - The front and rear fog lights are only used in inclement weather or in areas with little lighting, not left on all the time to look nice

    - Yellow bulbs are used so they actually do what they should - i.e. pierce fog (and yes, they do work.)

    Oh, by the way ... xenons and HIDs are the same thing. Gas discharge lights often incorporate xenon-filled capsules in their bulbs, which is why they are commonly called "xenon headlamps" and "high intensity discharge" is the technical term for the most common method used to create the brilliant arc. (xenon/HID lamps don't have filaments.)
  • by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @05:32PM (#8909182) Homepage Journal

    "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should...."

    A computer can more optimally adjust the ignition timing, fuel to air ratios, accessory loading, etc, than merely mechanical components. However, that doesn't mean that a computer controlled engine is immune to failure; it depends on the ethics and design principles of the engineers who built it. That said, computers have definitely improved the driving experience of the average driver.

    Because the computer runs the engine, changing ignition timing or fuel delivery is as simple as replacing an EPROM or (possibly?) uploading new software. But more, some engine electronics enable capabilities that mechanical systems could _never_ provide. For example:

    • The alternator is now controlled by the computer. Since the computer can know both the alternator's field current and the battery voltage, the computer itself could diagnose a battery which is losing its ability to hold a charge before the battery quits completely. Additionally, it can monitor the voltage drop and cranking rpm of the engine - which again, can determine if the starting circuit is developing resistance before the vehicle won't start at all.
    • Some more advanced systems, like Cadillac's Northstar V8's, can run without any coolant whatsoever. When the computer detects a catastrophic coolant loss, it fires alternate banks of cylinders - the result is that the "dead" power cycles pull air through the engine, cooling it down. While you won't have air conditioning, at least you'll be able to make it to a repair shop.
    • Even basic systems now have the ability to prevent engine damage by shutting the engine down when the temperature is too high or oil pressure is insufficient.
    • Computers can use the wheel sensors used for antilock brakes to determine if a tire is low and alert the driver: a tire with low pressure has a lower effective radius and will turn slightly faster than the others when the car is moving in a straight line.

    There's a saying among Chevy enthusiasts, "Those who'd rather push a Ford than drive a Chevy usually do...." Yes, it is true that you can fix vintage vehicles much more easily than computerized ones, and if you buy one, you might just end up fixing it more often than you'd like. What it comes down to is that at a certain point, it is going to cost more to keep an older vehicle running than it would to buy a new one.

  • by SnappleMaster ( 465729 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @06:12PM (#8909818)
    A poser SUV? What the fuck do you call a Cadillac SUV then, or 99% of the other SUVs on the market? At least if I took my CR-V offroad and broke it I could replace it without breaking the bank! And WTF is "artificially high resale value"? Is that what someone with a car with crappy resale value says to refute the fact that their car ages like crap?

    Anyways, IMHO in general an SUV is not an offroad vehicle. It's a yuppie-mobile. The CR-V is an economical family car. For us it's a solid, comfortable grocery getter with more cargo space than our 2 seater for long trips. That's it. All we want is something that drives, holds value well (relatively), is comfortable, reliable, and gets the job done.

    The Wrangler solves a different problem. I'm sure it's a way better off-road vehicle. But who cares? Look around, you idiot. 99.99% of the people who are buying SUVs today will NEVER take them offroad, unless you count that big gravel patch in the Safeway parking lot offroad.
  • by frdmfghtr ( 603968 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @06:23PM (#8909970)
    Even if your car remains accident-free, some of today's high-tech parts can leave you with big repair bills. The celebrated find for car thieves these days is xenon high-intensity-discharge headlights. They can cost up to $3,000 each. That's just for the part, not labor.

    If a car costs $30k, a pair of headlights is 20% of the cars value. WTF?!?!? There has to be some serious (and I mean SERIOUS) retail markup on those things, or else the cost reflects not just the bulb but the entire headlight assembly as well.

    "Activating" a headlight assembly from the manufacturer after a repair? What, are these things made by Microsoft? (had to say it, sorry)

    I used to think it might be neat to get a set of these...not anymore.
  • by BigBlockMopar ( 191202 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @06:37PM (#8910176) Homepage

    I mean, I had an 85 Civic that ran 250,000 no problem, why shouldn't a new one, better engineered, run longer?

    Better engineered to last a specific amount of time. Better engineered to be reliable and consistent.

    Typically, when the CV joints start to rattle, scrap the car and buy a new one - the Japanese are great at making the car work consistently and flawlessly until they get to that mileage. Once they're there, CV joints wear, alternator dies, valve stems are loose, balljoints aren't going to pass a safety inspection, etc.

    Old cars aren't necessarily better, and are often worse.

    That's BS. The manufacturing of older cars is frequently worse - manufacturing tolerances and stuff were greater.

    But the design, while simpler, is usually leaps and bounds better with inherent tolerance for, well, tolerances!

    CAD, finite element analysis and scientific calculators which hold ten decimal places are responsible for this. In the old days, with a sliderule handling 2 or 3 significant figures, you'd round up forces and round down material strengths. The net result was that it was a lot stronger than it needed to be! Also, with design allowances for wider production line tolerances, the finished product continued to perform well despite normal wear.

    On top of that, engine bay space wasn't at the premium it is now. Everything is easy to get at, to check it or to fix it, using common hand tools. This brings down maintenance and repair costs and serves to lengthen the vehicle's lifespan. Compare that to the alternator that I just replaced on a friend's 1993 Civic.... (never done an alternator in a Civic? Try it sometime.)

  • by Retired Replicant ( 668463 ) on Monday April 19, 2004 @06:49PM (#8910327)
    Some of this stuff sounds like auto manufacturers are trying to make sure replacemnt parts can only be ordered from the manufacturer. It the same bullsh*t printer companies were trying to do by sticking smart chips into their replacement printer cartridges. $3000 headlights that the manufacturer has to "activate" are a total scam.
  • by Rimbo ( 139781 ) <rimbosity@@@sbcglobal...net> on Monday April 19, 2004 @08:05PM (#8911182) Homepage Journal
    Of course, the pollutants and resulting fire probably killed in that one instance more animal life than will every be killed by thirteen Hummer dealerships' worth of cars being driven off-road.

    The ELF has done things like this before. They burned down an apartment complex being built near my home to protest "urban sprawl." Say what?

    1. The apartment complex was being built in the middle of the city, nowhere near the city limits.

    2. The smoke and ash from the fire poisoned the air in a 2-mile radius for the next two days.

    3. Any wildlife that had been living near the construction was killed by the heat from a 4-story all-wood bonfire. We could feel the heat from half a mile away as if we were right next to our fireplace; windows on that side of our apartment complex melted from the heat. You think any nearby animals survived the blaze?

    4. What do you think the owner of the property did? Do you think he saw the error of his ways? He ordered more wood. More dead trees. What else could he do? (The families you say that are now "safe in their midsize sedans" did not reconsider their purchases. They went to other dealers, or waited longer. They didn't change their behavior because of some arsonist's rationalization.)

    5. There had been coyotes, rabbits and rattlesnakes living there before construction began. They were still there after construction began. They weren't there after the fire.

    6. I hated the construction of that apartment complex for the noise, dirt, and turning a nice desert hillside between me and the interstate into one of urban construction. Once the ELF burned down the apartment complex, however, I felt sympathy for the people building it. I now cheer on the construction. This is significant; the ELF's actions not only have considerable harm on the environment, they turn hearts and minds AGAINST the environmental cause, and towards supporting developers. Besides, there are no more animals there; the ELF saw to that.

    The ELF does more to harm the environment and environmental policy than the very people they seek to harm. What's more, their acts of arson turn people's hearts against the environmental cause. Given that, I find it difficult to believe that the ELF really believes in the cause they claim to promote.

    The ELF needs to admit that they just like burning things, and stop the pseudo-environmental posing. That is the best thing they can do for the environment at this point.

Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Working...