Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I’m a guy that doesn’t go to car meets and drives a modified car, practically daily. It’s not as comfy as a standard car, also makes a lot of rickety noises when going on less than perfect roads thanks to a stiff suspension, chassis reinforcement and spherical bushes. NVH? Not a concern at all.
So why did I do it? It’s always an interesting morning commute to work, lol. And sometimes even fun to take the long way just to let the car stretch its legs.
A lot of people underestimate the costs of time and money when modifying cars. We’re practically trying to improve a car beyond the budget of a major manufacturer and man-hours of a team of engineers. But with the added advantage of having a specific direction, of improving only certain aspects incrementally and purposefully, noticing the sacrifices of the modifications, one can have a decent modified car that doesn’t suck. Some I’ve noticed wanted a full on race spec performance vehicle, only to discover that the maintenance and wear and tear of the racing parts eats up a lot of the dough reserved for future mods, and they give up halfway.
Hopefully Eric’s journey with the modified engine in the Fairmont will show how much work actually goes into a modified car, and why most people just give up halfway, or do it poorly, and why great modified cars are not common.
Apologies for resurrecting an old topic, but I think Scotty Kilmer made a good argument about how modern manufacturers do include planned obsolescence into modern vehicles
As to my experiences with header mods, I find that headers do work, but only if you can figure out the intake/exhaust cam timing that ensures the ‘tuned’ headers work (the exhaust pulses work to ensure the engine breathes best, which is why the new variable valve timings are so efficient in getting low end power) and also why some imports (I am thinking of honda, but other manufacturers do it too) can run ridiculously short exhaust headers with the cat in front of the block in their newer engines, thanks to variable cam/valve timing.
Then again, there are a lot of bad headers out there made by people who do not seem to understand header design, up to the point that even the cylinder pairings are very inefficient. It’s up to the consumer to do the research and not buy total marketing bullshit.
Personally, I do have certain opinions that may not be agreeable to everyone, and that is the purpose of putting cams in a street car. Sure they make more ‘peak’ horsepower, but when driving on the street, most of the usable power should be in the middle of the rpm range. That said, if enough power is made through the entire rpm range, then ‘average’ mid range power is enough, such as a v8, for example
Putting aggressive cams in a 4 cylinder engine where the mid range power is usually already anemic? All I can say each time I see one, is…WHHHHYYYY? Unless if it’s a drag racecar, I simply do not understand why people do this on street cars where they expect to drive in traffic where speed changes often, even most circuit cars tend to prefer a wider powerband than a narrow one.
Hi Eric, I agree with you that there are misconceptions about performance parts, but the misconceptions isn’t just related to getting ‘performance’. I believe there is also misconception about the purpose(s) of aftermarket performance parts.
I remember that you once said in once of your previous videos that modifying cars is bad because engineers know better.
For me,
Building a performance car from a econobox is a learning experience. Aftermarket parts serve to help me achieve certain goals with my car that engineers had to leave out due to cost, reliability or reasons of comfort.For example, when I starting hitting double the output the manufacturers intended, bushings keep breaking. I kept replacing them, but they only lasted a year or so before breaking. Tired or replacing them, I replaced them with sperical bushings. Being that it’s driven often, I opted for those that are sealed. Been using them for 6 years now, without squeaks and rattles (unless I’m driving on really bad roads) with slightly additional vibration. So there is a tradeoff, I traded comfort and cost for bulletproof reliability.
Similar with engines. Using forged internals (the piston specifically) means the engine burns oil slightly when cold because of piston to cylinder tolerances, I have the soot out of the exhaust staining the driveway from burnt oil when I warm it every morning.
I think the misconception most people have is that they will get something out of nothing when you bolt on a performance part, when in fact its more of an equivalent exchange. more cost for less weight and better materials, sacrifice reliability for performance, etc.
But I think people shouldn’t stop modifying cars, just that they should be better informed on the pros and cons of each mod.
As for me, I feel the mods are worth the increase performance despite having to sacrifice certain creature comforts. The severity kind of depends on how far the person/modder want to take ‘performance’ into the mix when he modifies his car.
Being that I’ve already completed a few modded car build, I think that it’s a common pitfall that you want to buy the best for the car, but can’t decide when to stop?
For me, it kind of depends on the affordability of the modification vs the benefits, but more on the affordability part.
Always stick to a total budget for modding.. With a set budget, I cannot and won’t simply buy every single overbuilt part that’s on the market, but rather work out what critical areas the car needs and allocate the budget accordingly.
For example, if the car has been known to have cooling issues, then obviously more budget will go to the cooling system. If it’s handling, more of the budget will go towards addressing the handling.
People who think that cars come off the assembly line perfect usually don’t get the idea of ‘improving’ the car because they don’t think about the budgetary constraints that go into building a car that might make the car ‘less perfect’ than it should be. So in building on modifying a car, I would address the weakest link first. But always remember the endgame when building a rolling shell from scratch, it’s to get the car MOVING. (Unless of course you are simply tinkering for the sake of tinkering or R&D of making custom parts.)
My approach is,
I figure out a set budget that I need to get it moving (usually I’ll go over, but usually not like double the amount)
So how much percentage of that will go to
a) driveline (increased power/not, transmission needs rebuilt?)
b) body and interiors (addressing rust, dents, interior bits, leather seats, entertainment system and what not)
c) supporting mods (rollcages, uprated mounts, chassis stiffening if required etc.)it makes more sense to spend enough to get it moving, then figure out the priorities. and purpose and choose the mods accordingly. without spending so much that the other areas of the build finds themselves devoid of a proper budget.
What are your goals for the car?
Are you adding more power? Or just fixing it to be drivable?
Pretty sure you’re not going to break the bank much if it’s the latter.
It’s when the former that you can break budgets in a big way.P.S. 4 microns, with that kind of filtering, isn’t that putting a heavy load on the pump?
As the above mentioned,
Do people torque bolts and nuts dry?
I was always under the impression that the torque specs assumes an oiled thread (usually light oil)The leak seems to from the top. There are cases where brake servo diaphragm breaks and gets brake oil into the cabin.
How is the brake pedal pressure? Spongy or hard?
As a person who learnt work on machines by necessity(motorbikes, cars, generators,etc) due to not being rich enough to hire a repairman for every single maintainance stuff.
I would say that being a torque nazi is probably a phase, and reflects on the person on how experienced he has handling machines.
I still remember when I was just in my early teens, fixing stuff by the repair manual.
And the repair manuals had these torque numbers so I assumed that all those numbers were scripture, and diverting from them was sacrilege!
But after a while, I started to question the need to torque everything with a torque wrench, especially when dealing with low torques, 5-30lbs ft. (Kinda depends how buff the person is lol)
In the end, I think being a torque nazi is just a phase, and people who work on machines long enough usually stop being torque nazis because they just get used to it being just a guideline.
Nowadays i just go by finger tight, arm tight or wtf is this tightness!.
But when i need to equalise the torque across multiple bolt, then out comes the torque wrench.
Planned obsolescence for me is a real thing, but I do not think it is an absolute evil. Things need to planned to fail (within reasonable time frame) so owners do not use them beyond the practical service life and open themselves to safety risk.
Sure, probably can make a bulletproof design, but when the wire insulation has a effective life of 15-20 years before breaking down, some owners will use the thing without realising the dangers that poses. Probably can also enginner against that, but cost comes into play. How much is longetivity worth when a few years later, maybe new techniques or technology can improve it? (Maybe in terms of manufacturing speed, not lastability, but it is an improvement.) Manufacturers, like any other business; must be profit and innovation driven.
What I do think is a bad thing is yearly product cycles, producing cars with incremental improvements (either in performance, function or form)
And that is the reason why I think planned obsolescence is indeed occurring.
Perhaps just not for a single reason though
1) to prevent market saturation, but engineer it so that it is not cost effective to maintain, rather than make it destructible (As Vlad2 mentioned)
2) safety issue, to prevent users from using it beyond its effective (or safe) lifespan and opening chances for owners to sue the manufacturer . (As suggested by DaFirnz)But sometimes planned obsolescence fails.
Takata is probably the most recent example of how planned obsolescense fails when they designed their inflators for a 7 year effective life, and most units fail and corrode before its effective life.
Then again, airbags are pretty recent and their MTTF is likely not as accurate as some designs such as brake servos, macpherson, leaf springs and whatnot that has pretty much gotten spot on given their technological age.
Its a risk to the company to implement planned obsolescence, but we all know manufacturers take risks all the time when implementing new technology or design choices. (Will the cutomer like the newer design compared to the competitors?)
Anecdote : Personally not liking the new looks of most post 2010 models, they look like a pain in the ass to wash with those fine grills and corrugared surfaces but maybe its just my age.
But I do really think planned obsolence is a choice they won’t think is too risky to take as you make it out to be.
Out of curiosity, I researched the origins of the word planned obsolescence… Thinking it was rooted in some other industry.
To my surprise, IT IS rooted in the auto industry from the 1924. GM vs Ford. GM churned out yearly model updates, rendering the previous generation obsolete with incremental technological advancement. Ford lost the battle as it stuck with the ‘make it last forever’ philosophy, as customers perceive newer models as better (they probably are).
There’s a lot more info about it. apparently so much so that more than a few books are written on the subject.
#TIL planned obsolescence actually first coined within the automotive industry. not the non-automotive manufacturing/computer industry as I initially thought.
Well, I do learn something new everyday.
I think that planned obsolescence is indeed prevalent in manufacturing industries, including automotives. Being a very old industry, they probably have very detailed MTBF(Mean Time Between Failtures) and MTTF (Mean Time To Failure) data on record of most materials and design and likely very accurate.
So they can, actually engineer cars to have a finite lifespan, and do so with a measure of accuracy. Also perhaps new manufacturing technologies that can produce parts faster with a sideeffect of a reduced lifespan may help in increasing sales when they are having a competing model that is equal in pricing.
However, it’s not entirely a good or a bad thing in my opinion. New technologies arise all the time, and it’s simply not cost effective or possible to bring an older model up to date, so obsolescence is perhaps not the absolute evil people paint them to be. (except for people who keep their cars for sentimental reasons)
But to say that a manufacturer does not consciously plan for obsolence.. is perhaps a half truth.
Sometimes they probably will, if the cost is too attractive to not implement.But as an owner of a 25 year old car from the 90s, and also an owner of a relatively new car (okay, I lied, it’s newer than my other one, at 2010), I have noticed that certain lifespan of wear and tear items have decreased, especially of rubber bushings, door seals, and interior plastic.
My older 25 year old car still has working original door seals and most of the interior bits (one panel was deteriorated, it simply cracked with age, and pulling it out, it came out in pieces. (I even have spares on hand in case it starts to fail/deteriorate, planned maintenance lol.)
come 2016, it’s still soft and pliable and doesn’t come off in pieces. While my other one, has a few seals and bushings and various interior plastic that already deteriorated and has gotten replaced.Perhaps it’s just the luck of the draw, but I honestly do think that planned obsolescence is something a manufacturer implements to keep their bottom line healthy. Good or bad, probably a little bit of both. You can’t make things last forever. But if you can, is it worth the cost?
I think most people’s concern is due to the fact that cars are updated yearly now, and due to the complexity in electronics of newer cars, some lemons sometimes come through and causes owners undue dealer visits, and gives rise to the fact that manufacturers are putting in absurd amounts of planned obsolescence (1-2 years) just so they can keep the market from being saturated.
I know I would do planned obsolescence if I was heading the company. 10K hours of operation is a reasonable target for MTTF (1 year) if used 24 hours a day, but who does that kind of driving?
Reason.. who’s going to buy my 2019 model when it comes out if the market is saturated with my previous product?