Karl's Daily Log Book

redmaxx

redmaxx

Alarm manufacturers have offered it for ages as an option on anything with an automatic.

I'm sure if there were a real market for that innovation, some luxury brand would have offered it before now. Especially Benz, the company that wants cars to drive themselves.

Really, you mean GM couldn't bring an innovation to market first? The innovation in remote start that you don't get with the aftermarket alarms is that it is fully factory integrated. I'm not talking about a half dozen different alarm sounds going off in sequence to annoy all the neighbors, I'm talking real security here. The system is completely integrated into the security system. Once you have issued a remote start the following things happen:

System checks to ensure there are no trouble codes stored that could impair the operation of the vehicle.System locks the doors (because you are forced to press the lock button) and arms the alarm.Upon any condition that could impair safe operation (i.e. new stored trouble-code) the engine is shut down.If the alarm is set off, the engine is shut down and cannot be remote started again until the next successful manual start.To drive the car you must unlock the doors and insert the key and turn the vehicle to run. The system checks to ensure that the key is a registered one by checking the embedded chip. If not, the car will shut down and cannot start.The vehicle cannot be shifted from Park unless the above step is completed.

There is a market for this handy and secure feature. Too bad Benz didn't think of it first. :P

redmaxx

I've tried that and it doesn't really work that well. Thanks for the suggestion though.

docnukem

Really, though, we are talking about cars. To me, engineering entails everything that makes the car move from point A to point B. A well-engineered car will have a good chassis, suspension, engine, transmission, steering, and brakes. If it doesn't have all of those first, the rest are just "gadgets". At the same time, styling (which needs to be integrated with the engineering) is the second major component to the car. Those two things are what will inspire passion (or lack of it) for the car.

I am not going to get into imports vs domestics, both groups have cars that meet the above criteria to greater or lesser degrees.

I have never had a car with remote start. I am sure I would like it if I had it, but it is not one of my criteria. My Nav system is cool, but I certainly don't need it. The same can be said for DVDs, 6-disc changers, heated/cooled seats, seat memory, and automatic zone climate controls.

Edit: I just realized I misspelled "engineering" as "enginerring" above (and corrected it), but then I had to laugh as some cars are clearly "enginerred".

imidazol97

Good point in your post. Here I am amazed at some of the criticisms of certain cars because other cars have specific items that a person believes requisite to the good engineering definition.

Some of these things have been suggested for 50 years--earlier someone mentioned cars that drive themselves. Remember the drive by wire ideas where cars just follow the road. A few years back GM had the demonstration with 5 or 6 LeSabres following the road, keeping the distance between cars safe and correct, and it was coming in the future. That concept was in Popular Science over and over through decades.

The first car with NAV was the Ford Aurora. It's in a recent issue of CD at my allergy doctor's office. 1964. It showed a map with crosshairs in a rectangular opening on the right side of the dash--hard for driver to see.

Automative temperature and system control with dual settings for driver/passenger is a creature comfort that I am not sure I want to do without. But it's probably for me what the NAV idea is to others, so I defer on that point.

zeuscgp

Just a little info about a GXP remote start function...
Pressing the start button on the key fob when temps are 80+ degrees F (I think it's 80), will start the car and automatically turn on the A/C. When it is colder than ?? (I forget what temp.) the car will start and automatically turn on the heat.

redmaxx

I can't remember that second number either. What is interesting though is that the temps you mention are read from the interior of the car. Whats the difference you say? Well, if you have been driving long enough to have cooled the car of sufficiently (I have done this before), stop, remote start the car, go into a store and come back out. Its got the heat on!

editor_karl

I love the irony that a few years ago Jeep was suing Hummer for ripping off the seven-slat front grille design.

Now comes the Jeep Commander, which is such a blatant Hummer styling rip-off it makes the blatant seven-slat grille rip-off look tame by comparison (square roof-line, short greenhouse glass, large wheelwells, etc.).

That said, I really like this car. It is becoming clear to me that all the Chrysler products are slowly becoming "Mercedes-ized" in terms of ride quality, steering feel and overall NVH levels (this is a good thing, just to be clear). Of course Mercedes doesn't have BMW steering feel, but the company's products still offer much better steering feel than the Chryslers of five years ago (and definitely better than a certain other domestic automaker out there...).

Beyond steering feel the Commander is fast (it had the Hemi), has smooth power delivery, comfortable seats and pretty fancy leather (the rest of the interior is standard-issue Chrysler, meaning fine but nothing to swoon over). It was raining most of the time during my drive, and the vehicle was very confident on wet roads. The second-row seat is tight on legroom, and I didn't even try the third row (I was actually using it to carry cargo so I had to keep those folded down), but it looks rather useless for full-sized adults.

The tricky thing about upright greenhouses is the bizarre reflections they create in the windows. I'm sure you get used to them if you own a car like this, but I find them very distracting, and I'm always thinking a car is coming at me from a weird angle when I see the reflections in my peripheral vision.

phillyone

"I'm not going to carry this on any further; this is Karl's thread, not mine."

Amen to that. It still seems to me that your point is that anything not found on a Toyota is unecessary or bad engineering. I wonder if that would be the case if Toyota were to copy some of the "gimmicks" we have been discussing. Just something to consider.

phillyone

YOu seem to be talking about engineering from a driving enthusiasts perspective, which is fine but that oversimplifies things. If engineering were only related to steering and handling then we could say that BMW makes the best engineered vehicles on the road. The problem is that different buyers want different things in their vehicles so BMW's are not ideally engineered for everyone. By your definition SUVs or minivans cant be examples of good engineering because they dont have precise handling and steering. Those vehicles are engineered for different things (cargo capacity, seat flexibility, towing capacity, etc.) so they arent going to excel in the ways a 3 series will, but that doesnt make them poorly engineered. People who are fans of old MBs and BMWs used to argue that they didnt have to lead in terms of technology because they got the basics right. To me that is nothing more than an excuse and when you look at how many gadgets are packed into European cars today I think it's clear that they believe gadgets = innovation.

carlisimo

If something so big has tight legroom with three rows, how's the Rav4 gonna pull it off?

explorerx4

as far as i am concerned, the highlander has the smallest 3rd row seats i have ever seen. even if the rav4 matches it, well never mind. :sick:
does the rx-330 (same bones) have 3 rows? think camry station wagon with three rows of seats. kind of difficult to imagine.
i am commenting only on this aspect of the vehicle.

210delray

It still seems to me that your point is that anything not found on a Toyota is unecessary or bad engineering.

I never said or implied anything about Toyota. I strongly believe remote start is a fuel waster; I don't care what car company has it.

Over and out. (And this is my last word for sure -- I'm moving on.)

Now about that Commander, it does seem odd that something that big would have too-small seating space in both the second and third rows.

What's the point?

editor_karl

Now about that Commander, it does seem odd that something that big would have too-small seating space in both the second and third rows.

What's the point?

A valid question. I think Jeep did some focus group work and found that not having a three-row vehicle was pulling them off a lot of shoppers' consideration lists. So they took the Grand Cherokee platform and threw in an extra row of seats, plus Hummer body work. I think the result is fine from a driving, and even styling, point of view (I guess the guys at Autoblog hate the styling...), but you simply can't take a two-row vehicle and make it into a three-row vehicle and expect it to really work.

The Highlander references are a great example of this point. Toyota obviously felt the Honda Pilot was trumping them in sales literature ("Pilot offers seven-passenger seating...") so they threw a third row in the car...but I don't think anyone really wants to sit back there...

Maybe after the Highlander's next redesign it will have a functional third row?

carlisimo

I can understand a third row meant just for kids... kids are getting big these days, and they're not allowed in the front, so maybe it's hard to put your average 2.5 children in the second row.

But when the second row is small too, you might as well paint it yellow.

When I was little I thought they should just put seat belts in the back of station wagons. Of course, what did I know... in kindergarten my friends and I would lie down in the back of their dad's van and roll around laughing as the van turned!

nitromax

I think Jeep did some focus group work and found that not having a three-row vehicle was pulling them off a lot of shoppers' consideration lists. So they took the Grand Cherokee platform and threw in an extra row of seats, plus Hummer body work.

Now there's a great example of the magnificent engineering that goes into SUVs!
:-)
Maybe Thule and Yakima can come out with some back-window-mounted car seats for SUVs to increase seating to 9 people. They can strap on the back hatch and hang from the roof rack on the back of the SUV....voila! two more extra seats!

the wonders of engineering.....

nitromax

When I was little I thought they should just put seat belts in the back of station wagons. Of course, what did I know... in kindergarten my friends and I would lie down in the back of their dad's van and roll around laughing as the van turned!

My parents had the equivalent of the Ford "family truckster" station wagon in the early 70's. It had a pop-up rumble seat way in the back that us kids used to sit in. It faced sideways with a bench seat on each side. Essesntially fitting 4 kids into that space. Add to that room for three across the front bench seat and three across the second row bench seat....4 adults and 6 kids....not bad!
:-)

redmaxx

I never said or implied anything about Toyota. I strongly believe remote start is a fuel waster; I don't care what car company has it.

Another use that you probably didn't think of (and is how I use it most often). In the summer, the car sits in the parking lot and all of the air in the ductwork gets very hot. As I walk towards the car, I remote start it and it blows all that hot air out. That way I don't feel like I'm in a furnace when I start the car. Used in that manner, it doesn't hardly waste any gas.

ateixeira

Packaging is everything.

The Jeep has a lot of hardware underneath, so it has a high floor. That's why they use theatre style seating. But there isn't much of a foot well to put your feet, so you sit knees-in-the-chest. There is width and headroom, but no legroom.

So the RAV4, though not as long or tall, could potentially have a better footwell and a more comfortable third row (with an indy rear suspension and a lower floor), especially with the spare tire mounted on the outside of the tailgate.

Pictures make the seats look small, we'll see. I bet it's close in terms of overall comfort, but both 3rd rows are meant for kids anyway.

-juice

rorr

What I'm trying to figure out is why a feature which has been available for years (if not decades) on the aftermarket suddenly an innovation when offered by the vehicle manufacturer?

You guys can debate all day long about how useful the feature is; I just don't get the reasoning that this feature is an innovation. IMO, an 'innovation' is bringing an idea or feature to the market which no one else has. Is it an 'innovation' when GM looks at something someone ELSE has thought of (remote vehicle start) and then made a marketing decision about offering it themselves?

redmaxx

The remote start, in and of itself is not innovative. What is innovative is the tight integration with the vehicle's systems, most importantly, the security system. Before you point out that the aftermarket systems usually came with alarms, the system GM has actually does things to prevent the car from being stolen. Things that an aftermarket system can't do.

imidazol97

rorr

"What is innovative is the tight integration with the vehicle's systems, most importantly, the security system."

Wow. What a difference of perspective. What a GM fan would label 'innovation' the rest of world would label as simply proper execution. FYI - aftermarket systems offering remote start DO provide measures to keep the car from being stolen. It would be kinda ridiculous to do otherwise.

nwng

my old man had a aftermarket remote start on his mb 8 yrs ago, same procedure applies if you need to get the car going. But i remember the remote start has a seperate fob, which I found quite cumbersome.

BJ's sells a remote start/pwr lock system for $99, but I have no idea how complicated the install would be.

phillyone

People are picking on one feature I named, but I mentioned several. I dont think I stated GM invented remote start, but as others have stated offering it as factory equipment and integrating it with the climate control and heated/cooled seats is innovative in my book but I suppose that would make me a "GM Fan". Most technology featured in cars today is invented in another field or developed by a 3rd party supplier. Since the thins I have mentioned dont count, I am curious as to what counts as innovation. Hybrids are innovative, I think we can all agree on that. It seems to me the point here is that the domestic automakers dont create or invent anything worthwhile. That may be true to some people here, but it still doesnt show me how the foreign companies are leading the way in terms of engineering. By all means, provide me with some examples. For the record, I dont think nice plastics or tight tolerances count as engineering, at least not in this context. Overall, I would have to say the Germans are the leaders in terms of introducing new technology and features to the marketplace. In a way that makes sense because they charge the most for their products.

editor_karl

I am curious as to what counts as innovation

Here are a few I can think of:
Direct Injection
Head airbags
Dual-stage (or smart) airbags
MP3-capable audio system
Bluetooth
Anti-whiplash seats
Electronic brakeforce distribution
Stability control
Smart cruise control

Now the interesting part -- which automakers were the first to offer each of these innovations in a production vehicle?

dieselone

Now the interesting part -- which automakers were the first to offer each of these innovations in a production vehicle?

I'll take a leap and say MB and VW/Audi. They are the only makes off the top of my head that use direct injection in the US market. MB's only DI engine I know of is their diesel and VW/Audi has the direct injected diesel along with the gas 2.0L turbo and 3.2L v6 with direct injection.

manamal

DI: SAAB I believe
Bluetooth: Toyota?
AntiWhipash SAAB or Volvo
Smart Cruse MB

bigdaddycoats

Bluetooth - Acura TL

redmaxx

So, far the only thing I can find concretely are the last two. They were both first introduced on Mercedes-Benz cars.

210delray

BMW - inflatable tubes (sausages) - 1998 5 series models

Volvo - side curtains - 1999 S80; combination head/torso bags - 1999 S70/V70
Also Ford had combo bags as options starting in some 1999 models.

redmaxx

GM developed the first active head restraint system in 1997. Another innnovation that wasn't on your list, but is arguably important, is their Night Vision system. GM was the first to introduce side-impact airbags in 1996, but I can't tell if they are torso or head type. Another overlooked innovation is On-Star, developed in 1996. Don't say that a cellphone is just as good, since the cellphone won't automatically call for help in the event of a crash.

Other items that GM pioneered are:

- Energy absorbing steering column
- Electric headlamp
- Shatterproof windshield glass
- Side guard door beams

210delray

Volvo had the first side-impact airbags, torso only, in the 1995 850. The Cadillac DeVille had door-mounted torso airbags starting in either 1996 or '97.

I always thought Ford came up with laminated windshield glass back in the 20s or early 30s. If you're talking about the thicker laminated glass, I believe all domestic automakers started using it in 1966 models.

redmaxx

I misread what I was reading about the airbag. Although Volvo was the first to introduce it, they didn't develop it. NHTSA just awarded Jan Olsson of Autoliv its Safety Engineering Excellence Award for the side impact airbag.

redmaxx

Apparently it was also Autoliv that developed the first anti-whiplash seat, which was first in Volvo's cars.

xmf314

Volvo introduced the first three-point safety belt in 1959.

manamal

You said:

GM developed the first active head restraint system in 1997. Another innnovation that wasn't on your list, but is arguably important, is their Night Vision system. GM was the first to introduce side-impact airbags in 1996, but I can't tell if they are torso or head type. Another overlooked innovation is On-Star, developed in 1996. Don't say that a cellphone is just as good, since the cellphone won't automatically call for help in the event of a crash.

I respond:
This is one of my pet peaves: Onstar crash notification requires a power connection with no battery backup (or at least did). In 2002, I was T-Boned in a onstar-equipped SAAB by a cadallac doing 60 mph. Pass. side and front airbags deployed. Onstar notification failed.

ateixeira

I believe the first gasoline direct injection engine was patented by Mitsubishi, of all people.

MazdaSpeed MS6 is (I believe) the first to combine gas direct injection with a turbocharger.

-juice

gee35coupe

Night Vision isn't all that important? Especially in the U.S. with our sorry speed limits. I mean it's only available on one model of car. That should say tons.

ateixeira

It was not a popular option, and you're right, it didn't "catch on".

But you still gotta give Cadillac kudos for pushing the envelope. It's very hard to guess what will or won't catch on.

-juice

bigdaddycoats

There has been speculation that Nissan may move its U.S. headquarters from southern CA to possibly TN or some other location.

Good article here -

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/20/C01-355085.htm

What are your thoughts on such a move? I know that CA is viewed as trend setting, but would it really hurt Nissan not to be there? Nissans resurgence has seemed to be based on performance orientated vehicles - and it has worked. I guess I am not sure how it would adversely effect Nissan by moving locations. I do not see any Nissan product currently on the market as trendy.

Just curious as to your thoughts.

imidazol97

A move to Nashville would be beneficial. They would be closer to many of the buyers of automobiles and get information without the aura put on it by California as to what buyers really want. They also are adding great production capabilities in their Smyrna area plant.

gee35coupe

Especially in Germany where you might actually need that kind of night response time. But at a time when most cars make due with halogens, I don't see niht vision being much real benefit.

nwng

If xenons can't lit up the road bright enough for your nighttime driving, you are either going way too fast or you need a eye checkup.

210delray

Plus some people never or rarely use their highbeams, too lazy to switch them on and off. They really help light up the road well ahead.

Also, those swiveling headlights should add another level of safety.

tayl0rd

I still remember the Mitsubishi commercials from when I was in Japan.

GDI! GDI! G-D-I!!

tayl0rd

Regarding the night vision system. It didn't catch on because it was too expensive. Have you ever seen what Cadillac charges for options?? :sick:

ateixeira

No, but the demo at the auto show circuit was pretty impressive.

-juice

carlisimo

Hydroforming?

And I know they've done a lot of good work in manufacturing processes. (I guess we could give Ford special mention there too...) It hasn't helped GM much though... they don't benefit from reducing workers if they have to keep paying them, and they don't need more manufacturing volume either.

kevm14

but I never crawled around in the snow (in western MI with plenty of lake-effect snow from Lake MI) with my RWD 328

I put snow tires (Dunlup Graspic DS-2) on my Camaro Z28 6-speed (limited slip and ABS but nothing else) and it did AWESOME last winter (New England).