Two examples of “forever” cars:
http://growingbolder.com/media/technology/vehicles/romancing-the-road-259598.html
I used the ECM as an example but there are other parts that can fail and can be unavailable 25 years from now such as oxygen sensors, throttle position sensors, idle air control, ignition position sensing and spark firing modules and the like. In addition, Toyota dealers are far apart except in urban areas and even then, there are only a few of them.
Who can speak knowingly to say that a 25 year old ECM is reliable?
Personally I feel that anything that has been properly engineered will last indefinitely with proper maintenance. And by properly engineered, I also mean maintainable, not a car where you have to spend 3 hours just to change a thermostat.
I’m not a big Ford fan, but I’d say the humble Crown Vic may be tops in longevity. When police departments have thrown them away, taxi companies buy them and drive them a few more hundred thousand miles. So maybe durability should also be included. It doesn’t matter how reliable a car is if it can’t take hitting a curb once in a while. I seriously doubt a Civic would stand up to the use n’ abuse that police and taxi service gives a car. The Crown Vic, if nothing else, is a car that has been thoroughly debugged.
@keith: If you could get your hands on the original software code, there’s no reason you couldn’t use whatever microcontroller is available to make an “emulator” Not that it would be easy… Kind of the electronic equivalent of fabbing obsolete parts in a machine shop.
Wha Who?, I have had an ECU fail on me, it is rare but it does happen.
oblivion, good point, but then it wouldn’t be all original would it?
I think, if one was really invested in keeping a computerized car they could convert to something like Megasquirt or whatever’s “hip” ca. 2038…in the event the CPU went belly-up.
An awful lot of the underhood sensors are potentiometers, thermistors, hall-effect sensors, etc, that could be duplicated with a trip to Radio Shack.
There are a lot of factors at work with respect to vehicle longevity. Design is important but so is climate and mechanical ingenuity. I was just watching a program about urban gardens in Cuba and saw an absolutely stunning '59 Edsel that was still being operated as a regular driver. I also watch a few British dramas and am struck by the simplicity of a lot of the sixties models…nothing particularly fancy but (perhaps with the exception of Lucas electrical systems) basic A to B transportation. Of course I am one of a few remaining class of dinosaurs that could easily live without a radio, power brakes, air conditioning, power windows and power mirrors…
I really like my stick shift, manual windows and locks Toyota Matrix. Very hard to find. Nobody who rides with me has a clue that you need to lock the door when leaving. Gave a ride to a friend of my son’s and he had never seen a window crank.
@Mayday: You have a rare bird. I personally like power windows and locks though. I like being able to key the remote and having my car open up, especially the trunk. FYI, out of the only two window failures I’ve had, one was my first car with a stripped gear on the driver’s power window, and the other was with a manual window. I’ve not had power locks fail. (yet anyway)
I had a 1954 Buick in the early 1960s and it was more convenient than present cars with power locks. The ignition switch had three positions “Lock”, “On”, and “Off”. I would leave the ignition switch in the off position without the key in the lock. I also left the doors unlocked. The car was old enough that most people didn’t realize that the ignition could be turned on without the key. Also, most people didn’t know that the starter was activated on the Buick by stepping down on the accelerator pedal. This was even more convenient than the system on today’s cars where the ignition key can stay in one’s pocket because it sends a signal to the electrical system of the car and the car is started by pressing a “start” button.
I bought the Buick from my dad in 1963. The car had 160,000 miles on it when I sold it in 1965 and had never had the head or pan off the engine and used no oil. It was still on the streets at least 2 years later.
The biggest issue I have with power windows and locks isn’t the rare failure itself, it’s the difficulty of removing and reassembling the door trim and covers after you’ve done the repair. Once you remove the door handles and trim to get inside the door, good luck getting those items to fit tight once they are reassembled. Perhaps a body shop could do it right, but for DIYers like me, it’s just easier not to ever have to deal with it.
But @Keith just like the RR owner might have to fabricate his own parts, using a generic ECU would only be a matter of adapting the wiring and programing the mixture. They all mostly do the same thing based on the same sensor inputs. No one would have to build one themselves with the same components.
“using a generic ECU would only be a matter of adapting the wiring and programing the mixture.”
"only’…ha-ha-ha, that’s rich…(sorry)
I’m inclined to think that Oblivian is right when he suggests that if you could get the programming you could build an “emulator” to replace an ECU (without OBDII), but there’s a bit more complexity than that.
The bottom line is that you’d need to know the signal outputs from the critical sensors that determine the pulsewidth of the injectors and the spark timing, including the cranks speed sensor, the cam position sensor, the temp sensor, and the others, and you’d need to know the engine needs (for example how much air it’s actually pulling in under its various operating conditions…you’d need that to interpret the MAF sensor output), you’d need to know the characteristics of the injectors, and you MIGHT be able to replicate a program to keep the fuel metered properly under all the engine’s operating conditions…but you’d better be good.
And there are already “self learning” throttle body injection systems on the market now for converting carburated engines. Perhaps soon someone will offer a generic ECU. Simply enter into its programming pod what car/engine you’re installing it into and it’ll understand what sensors are in use and create a basic program, to “learn” it’s way into efficiency. It’ll know that under specffic inputs the injector pulsewidths and ignition timing are required, and if its feedback signals (upstream O2 sensor etc.) tell it something needs to be tweaked, it’ll adjust itself.
I don’t find a generic unit to be inconceivable with today’s technology. Or even unrealistic.
Quote from the same mountainbike: I don’t find a generic unit to be inconceivable with today’s technology. Or even unrealistic." Unquote
I agree that there will one day be a demand for a universal ECM to run an old engine from 2013 for people who want to restore an old car. It will need to be reasonably priced but there is still the issue of peripherals for needed input to the universal ECM. One day the scrapyards will run out of used peripherals and there may or may not be a current device that is identical or else adaptable to an old engine. Possibly all of this could be avoided by concentrating on running the engine, possibly even with a carburetor and dispensing with emission requirements for an old car that will be not be driven except to antique meets and parades. It will be interesting to see how all of this turns out.
The Asian aftermarket industry is truly remarkable. You see 30 years old Mercedes cars in great condition and kept going with nothing but Chinese parts. I’m sure generic aftermarket ECMs will show up in the future./