Yeah, EFI allows for more reliable starting, more power, and not having to fiddle with a choke–all things customers want. It’s silly to think that the automakers wouldn’t have added computer controls to their cars, EPA or no EPA. The EPA didn’t mandate automated HVAC or active noise cancellation, but they all wound up in cars due to customer demand. EFI was a “thing” even before the smog standards tightened up–it was clearly technology in a “holding pattern” until computing power could catch up.
Not that I know much but I think rather than promoting fuel injection, the feds nearly destroyed the US auto industry. The foreign companies were sitting with the small cars that could meet the standards and all the US had were big cars. It took a while to downsize them to meet the standards. That’s when everything got smaller, frames went, FWD came in, and trucks became popular as transportation. Sure fuel injection helped meet the standards and eventually would have anyway, but I don’t think the US cars would have gone FWD and gotten so much smaller had it not been for the feds.
Same thing with light bulbs. I’m not saying I don’t like LED bulbs better, but a 100 watt LED now costs me $10 instead of 50 cents for a regular bulb. If it weren’t for the feds, LEDs wouldn’t be a big hit. I’d rather they just stay out of it but that’s not the Washington way. They know what’s best for everyone else.
LED bulbs will probably be costing 50 cents too, eventually. It takes some time for economy of scale to catch up is all. LED’s light bulbs are just sand and a few trace chemicals and some copper for the wiring. The rest is mostly oil byproducts. In the quantities needed to make a light bulb, the ingredient list is very cheap.
I’ve seen 60 watt eq LED bulbs at $3.40
I believe that if LEDs were truly better market forces would cause them to succeed without regard to any federal regulations. I agree with George that costs will come down with economies of scale. I personally still prefer incandescent.
I don’t know that I agree regarding unibodies and FWD.
Unibodies and FWD came into popularity amongst manufacturers due to costs. Once the technology evolved, it was less expensive to make the body and frame one and the powertrain one “module” onto which to bolt the unibody. The original Mini in 1959 (photo attached) utilized a transverse engine FWD format (a powertrain “module”) design to keep costs low and to get maximum interior space out of a small body. There are other examples, but this is perhaps the most illustrative.
Small cars were actively produced simply due to market demand. The massive influx of low-priced and reliable Japanese cars undercut the market on the “big three” and they had no choice but to pursue small cars. It was not driven by the feds, but simply by market forces. Japanese cars were small because, well, ever driven there? Tiny streets, tiny people, tiny everything. Even the trucks often have three 12-inch wheels. That’s what evolves on an island. Japan is smaller than our Eastern seaboard, and in 1975 they had 126 million people living there. Everything had to be small to fit it all in.
It was all driven by market demand, the (related) influx of the Japanese imports, and production costs. IMHO the feds were not a force in and deserve zero credit the downsizing of cars, unibodies, or FWD.
As a matter of fact, cars are growing in size due to changes in market preferences as we “boomers” get older and wider and our backs fail. It’s happening with total disregard to the feds. As a matter of fact, to try to meet market demands and still satisfy “regulatory creep”, manufacturers are now taking chances with long term reliability, so I would argue that fed requirements are working against us.
Forgot this… sorry
Since this has evolved to LED lights. All of outdoor holiday lights are led and I have noticed a real difference in the electric bill. We also have 4 large curio cabinets with collector glass on display and the led lights last so much longer that I feel they are less expensive.
Not that I know much but I think rather than promoting fuel injection, the feds nearly destroyed the US auto industry. The foreign companies were sitting with the small cars that could meet the standards and all the US had were big cars.
I don’t know how you can say that with a straight face!!! The feds had NOTHING to do with destroying the US auto industry…they did that all by themselves.
It was OPEC in the early 70’s that caused gas prices to triple overnight. And the buying public started buying smaller cars for the better gas mileage. President Nixon (who started the EPA) saw the need to build vehicles which got better gas mileage so we weren’t so dependent on foreign oil. That philosophy was good then…and is still valid today.
The last thing that killed the US Auto industry was the CRAP vehicles they built. If GM actually decided to build quality vehicles - instead of vehicles like the Vega…many economists have said GM would still be the world leader. Japanese vehicles (and even European vehicles) were KILLING the US in terms of quality.
Engines are clearly much more efficient today, but, with respect, I cannot agree with the contention that the EPA and CAFE requirements should get the credit.
I completely disagree with that. The graph of the Cafe’ numbers compared to what the US manufacturers were doing is directly related. There isn’t one single year where the US manufacturers were increasing their fleet MPG numbers if the feds weren’t increasing theirs. The years where the Feds never increased the Cafe’ numbers…the Auto manufacturers didn’t increase their numbers. Sure computer technology was the key to achieve those numbers…but I’ll guarantee you that if there was no Fed Cafe’ numbers…every car today would still be using Carburetors and the average fleet MPG would be about 18mpg.
It seems like – from a “drive it until the wheels fall off” driveway diyer’s perspective anyway – US car companies are able to be innovative in their manufacturing technology, and do a good job at that, but are challenged for some reason in coming up with innovative car designs with features that buyer’s want.
Well, they were certainly caught flat-footed in the 70s. A lot of things affected that the oil spike in particular. Remember that the Big 3(1/2) were coasting on “proven technology” that was pre-emissions. All that old tech was a nightmare to get past emissions, and I should know–my truck has a inline 6 (mid-60s tech) and it requires two cats just to pass emissions! The imports all used newer designs, and could get them past emissions with less in the way of cats, and (the biggies) lowered compression and retarded timing.
Emissions needed to be done (to a certain extent, anyways)…but it couldn’t have come at a worse time for Detroit.
Im not sure it was a human or customer demand that combined computers and engines… It was a natural progression. It was necessity I think… Many of the mechanical devices meant to manage the timing and other areas of an engine were just ways of doing things without a central nervous system. The ECU was the obvious way to go…it was more than readily apparent. Any engineer worth a damn, wouldn’t have needed cajoling to employ it on an engine. We reap the rewards to this day and then some.
Since I am not politically minded in any way…this is how I see it.
No ?
Blackbird
The imports all used newer designs
No they weren’t. Their designs were no more advanced then the US manufacturers were. Their only advantage was they were building smaller vehicles. They exploited a market that US manufacturers abandoned. The oil crisis of the 70’s pushed people of meager incomes to find alternatives to the 15mpg vehicles that were available from the Big-4.
Many of the mechanical devices meant to manage the timing and other areas of an engine were just ways of doing things without a central nervous system. The ECU was the obvious way to go
I don’t think it was the obvious way to go…UNLESS you NEEDED to go there. Mechanical timing and fuel control worked extremely well for DECADES. Still does work well. It’s simple and it works. No question a computer controlled system is going to be more efficient. Necessity is the mother of invention. If there’s no need (i.e not necessary)…then why invent something. Auto manufacturers will only do R&D for areas they see as a direct money maker (unless they’re forced to).
I have to agree that from a cost-of-manufacture standpoint an ECU was the obvious way to go.
For fuel to be metered, the injector has to know how much fuel is needed. The only way to know is to put sensors in key spots monitoring critical parameters and run them through a single algorithm, letting the product of that determine the pulsewidth. It’s the simple, direct, and most cost effective way to go. And it’s a huge improvement over carburetors. I’d bet that the complete metering system including all the sensors and the ECU costs less to per unit in mass production cost than two-barrels once the costs of tuning the two-barrels is factored in.
My argument is that the government can take no credit for this. It’s simply a better and less expensive way to meter fuel. These two technologies would have come together with the same result no matter what the feds did or didn’t do. The feds had no part in the development of fuel injection or in the development of ECUs, either directly or as a motivator. It was the logical evolution of technology.
Carburetors worked great for decades… but fuel injection, once it was mated to an ECU, works even better. The feds had no part in it.
CVCC stratified charge was pretty advanced, Mike. I don’t see why you care to pretend otherwise. The CVCC, initially, didn’t even need a cat to meet standards.
I have to agree that from a cost-of-manufacture standpoint an ECU was the obvious way to go. For fuel to be metered, the injector has to know how much fuel is needed.
One thing you didn’t mention was the R&D to get there. Prior to an ECU being used…there was a lot of R&D needed to get to that point. Not to mention now hiring a staff of DSP software engineers and QA staff. The startup cost for something like this is in the millions.
Sorry I still don’t see any of the Big-3 doing this on their own.
Needed to go there? I think they needed to go there… for so many reasons. But I get what you are saying. Who knows…Chicken and the Egg I guess… Im just glad we are where we are…using ultra fast sensors and management to precisely fire or trigger things that honestly needed a lot more accuracy…Needed… if you strive to make more power with less fuel or just more power alone.
That philosophy should be at the core of any engine designers goals…otherwise no need for the slide rule to figure out the math to do it mechanically… Good Enuf only goes so far.
I dont know what the actual reasons behind it were…but if I was in the game…adopting computer controls would have seemed blatantly obvious.
Blackbird
If the auto industry were at all interested in MPG…then why didn’t fleet MPG improve even .01MPG from the last EPA increase? Sorry still not buying it. All evidence I see is that the Auto Industry not only never did any new technology to improve MPG without the EPA Cafe’ mandates…they spend MILLIONS in lawyers and lobbyists to ensure it never happened.
"The startup cost for something like this is in the millions."
True, but auto manufacturers budget millions for R&D anyway. This is all encompassed in R&D. Heck, they even spend millions on “concept cars” that they never even intend to produce.