I remember reading a while ago about the state of the art Audi A8 aluminum body and how Audi would only allow around 15 Body shops in the entire country to do body work on them.
I found it hilarious when Inside Line got their A8 back from an Audi certified body shop to repair a scratched door and the color was mismatched so badly it was easily seen on the online photo
I'm shocked Audi will stand behind even 15 body shops in the USA given the sad sorry state of body shops in the USA. If you can find 15 good ones in the entire country, your doing 14 better than me. I think insurance companies and their corruptive influence may be in part to blame for the typically horrid quality of your average body shop in this country, but that's another thing Americans can't seem to do well; body shop and paint work. The 15 number is higher than I'd of expected, I'd of figured maybe 1 good one for every 20 States, so about 2.5 in the country.
Honestly, I'm of the opinion that if there is more than $2,000 damage, they should just total the vehicle because I haven't seen any competence in a long time, let alone GREAT work, in the repair body shop industry in CA.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Nothing is a bigger white elephant than a German luxury car out-of-warranty.
Well some people do get lucky on the reliability front. Lemko, I just know that with the styles of cars you like, you'd fall in love with the A8 or probably even the A6. I don't think any US metal really compares to the MB or Audi feel and interior quality. You should lease one for a few years, just to treat yourself. You only get one time around in life.
I know that I got rid of my '98 A4 earlier than I have any other car (88K) because I worried about long term maintenance. I've missed that car ever since. My '05 TL is nice but still no comparison. But then the Acura hasn't had any problems in 126K, either. Not even the tranny, contrary to those who think that all Honda and Acura trannys are gone by 50K or something.
But then the Acura hasn't had any problems in 126K, either. Not even the tranny, contrary to those who think that all Honda and Acura trannys are gone by 50K or something.
Similarly to my Chevys...I drove 336K miles in Chevys with the 2.2 or 3.4 and never had the intake manifold gasket issue people think happened at 37K miles.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Similarly to my Chevys...I drove 336K miles in Chevys with the 2.2 or 3.4 and never had the intake manifold gasket issue people think happened at 37K miles.
Did the 2.2 have an intake gasket problem as well? I thought it was mainly the 2.8/3.1/3.4 V-6, and a few years of non-supercharged Buick 3.8's?
One of my coworkers had the intake go on her Olds Silhouette minivan, but it was around the 90,000 mile mark. It was also given to her by her parents, and I don't think she took very good care of it.
Now that I think about it, I also know someone who had the issue with a 1999 Park Ave, but it happened around the 100,000 mile mark, if not higher.
Thinking back on it, I had two friends in college who had Cavalier Z-24's. Both of them had head gaskets blow. However, one of them was a 1986 bought used in 1993, and he was rough on cars. I have no idea how many miles it had on it. Another friend got an '89 Z-24 brand-new his freshman year in college, and it was dead by 1997, with around 90,000 miles on it. It was worth almost nothing in trade, so I think he just donated it.
It's funny though, how some things live up to their reputation and others don't. For example, I had a 1980 Malibu with the 229 V-6 and the lightweight, troubleprone THM200 automatic. Never a bit of trouble from the transmission. Mom bought that car new, gave it to me when I got my license, and I sold it at 100,000 miles. But then, I had a 1982 Cutlass Supreme, 231 V-6 that oddly had the beefier THM350, and had to get it rebuilt around 61-62,000 miles!
I guess I should add a little backstory here, though. My Granddad was a mechanic, and his brother in law worked at a transmission shop. Granddad was really anal about maintenance, so he'd have my Mom, and then me, take it in for a transmission servicing every year. Mom bought that car in Feb 1980, and I got it in Feb 1987, so it was 7 years old to the month, and had about 79,000 miles on it. So, it was getting serviced roughly every 11,000 miles. The owner's manual optimistically stated that it could go 100,000 miles between servicings...no wonder the things tended to fail prematurely!
In contrast, I bought the Cutlass used, in 1993, with about 61,000 miles on it, for $800. Almost immediately, it started acting up, holding the gears too long and shifting funny. I took it to the transmission shop, and the mechanic said they could get it running okay for about $150, but couldn't guarantee that it wouldn't start acting up again in about a year. It had a lot of metal shavings and silt that was clogging up the filter, restricting flow, and making it act up. So, either it was assembled poorly from the factory, or neglected. Or both. Anyway, they said they could rebuild it for around $675. I thought I'd have that car a long, long time, so I went for the rebuild. Probably shouldn't have, as the engine started to chew itself up internally around the 72,000 mile mark.
This Detroit News story makes it sound like GM still hasn't changed it corporate culture much.
"An early example of Ewanick going around normal channels, one he spoke of frequently in interviews, was a decision to forgo GM's typical process for buying furniture and instead go with bargain retailer IKEA for his office at the company's headquarters, spending $2,000 when he was allowed about $50,000.
"While Joel was a risk-taker and big-picture kind of guy, he was not real concerned about the details and that indeed may have been his downfall," said AutoStratagem's Gorrell. "His leaving may suggest that GM will take a more conservative, business-as-usual approach in the future."
Ewanick may have shot too much from the hip with his Facebook and Superbowl ad cuts, and then doing the big soccer deal.
I'm pretty sure I'd heard about the 2.2's supposedly having the issue too. I forgot to add another 108K miles in a '90 2.2, plus 75K in an '89 2.8, that I didn't include in my original 336K mile total earlier. Never had an intake manifold gasket issue in a single one of them.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I've only known one person who had that intake gasket problem - my uncle, who had it in a 98 LeSabre with a 3.8. I think it failed at something like 80K miles. Friend of mine also had the typical Accord V6 transmission failure, at 70K miles - but it was under extended warranty at the time. Speaking of transmissions, a friend of mine had an 83 Monte Carlo with a 305 and whatever the dreaded transmission was then, TH200? He knew it was slowly dying, and nursed it along for a few years, until the car has around 120K on it and was over 15 years old...so it didn't really owe him anything.
they could have just copied Toyota and done a lot better
That's sort of what Ford is doing. The Fusion hybrid beat the old Camry hybrid (in EPA tests more so than real world, but still). I bet they try the same thing again when the new one comes out.
Heck, they could have just copied Toyota and done a lot better.
Either that, or just buy the systems from Toyota, like Nissan did with the Altima hybrid.
While I'd rather see GM innovate, rather than have to rely on someone else's accomplishments like that, I'd also rather them put out a good product, rather than do it half-cocked.
Does the Malibu Eco at least come with any standard features that a Camry hybrid might not? If they did a few tricks like that, such as throwing in leather, nicer wheels, and NAV, it might offer some incentive. But, I have a feeling that they don't.
I came close to buying a used 2008 Altima hybrid around this time last year when my truck was giving me fits. It was at Fitzmall, for around $14-15K, with sunroof, leather, etc. I think it had around 40,000 miles on it. Seemed like a deal to me, but when I called about it, it had already been sold.
That's because not much has changed with the GM culture. That's why GM will likely need another bailout shortly. Timing for a horrible corporate culture with bad decisions and egocentric management gave it to the competition far to many years now. Bailing that culture out and watching the continuous changes at the management level since makes that quite apparent for the blinder-less!
BTW, Audi, Merc and BMW make Caddy look sick even with the newer offerings...wait! Caddy IS still sick! :P
If you thought the bailout was fun, you gotta love the quote in this owner's rant about why Ford didn't take the money - "..they just steal it from their customers".
That's sort of what Ford is doing. The Fusion hybrid beat the old Camry hybrid (in EPA tests more so than real world, but still). I bet they try the same thing again when the new one comes out.
Think of how much less Ford has spent on their hybrids than GM. Of course, they are spending their own money.
While I'd rather see GM innovate, rather than have to rely on someone else's accomplishments like that, I'd also rather them put out a good product, rather than do it half-cocked.
Heard an interesting podcast today. The theory is that with Google's computer-driven cars now up to 300K miles driven autonomously in CA without an accident while under computer control, the future is likely to be automated driving. We know Ford has the auto-park feature, and lots of makes have radar cruise control and lane departure detection. Cars are progressively getting more able to control themselves, and this change could happen a lot faster than we think - say 5-10 years for commercialization.
Once autonomous cars become common, you could drive with much more safety, follow other vehicles more closely (thereby increasing road capacity). You could also see services where a car drives to your house (a rental or a natural progression of something like Zipcar) and takes to you your destination, then leaves to go to the next customer. That opens up the possibility of "ordering up" whatever vehicle you need today - an SUV for a towing operation; a minivan for the family, a Mercedes for the hot date, etc. And the tremendous waste of vehicles, most sitting >90% of the time, could be substantially reduced. In this scenario, the quantity of vehicles produced might decrease drastically, and the auto makers (that survive) would be "transportation providers", not just "auto makers".
Where is GM in THAT scenario? Are they planning for anything like this?
Given their lack of plans for a gas crisis or drop in the economy, I would say they need to start thinking a lot more forward than they have ever shown the ability to.
I've seen a couple of science channel-type programs about the Google self-driving car, but what I HAVEN'T seen is any attempt to place the car in an accident-avoidance situation in a real-time environment.
How does the Google car handle the suddenly unexpected event? Yes, its pretty easy to train a kid to drive constantly in a group of cars going 70 mph down a straight interstate, but quite different to train the same kid how to avoid a sudden pileup or cross-lane intrusion.
I'm not making light of the Google work... It's pretty fantastic, and nothing like just riding along in my example above. I just have yet to see any footage of what a Google-like driver/car might do when the car immediately ahead loses a wheel at 70mph and starts rolling, in 4 lanes of one-way traffic. Maybe these test have been done, and I'm just not aware of them...
I'm not trying to start a firestorm here of which company took what money from who to spend how, but Ford got an awful lot of benefit from government $$$ even though they directly didn't take the "bailout" $$$.
It's a little bit like living in a high crime area, and advocating for a much higher level of tax $$$ supported police protection for your neighbor's house, but not your own. Of course, you will indirectly benefit from the neighbor having a police car parked in his driveway 24/7.
:P :P Cars are progressively getting more able to control themselves, and this change could happen a lot faster than we think - say 5-10 years for commercialization.
I can't see this happening in my lifetime, and I'm in my mid 30's now. There is just no way, and way too many issues!
First, when the computer does get in an accident, who's computer is at fault? Who pays to insure the computers automated accidents when they do (and will) occur? I don't trust my life to automated driving, and I certainly won't trust my wallet to one.
I've driven over 16 years without an at-fault accident (and around 15K miles per year in that time on average). Why fix what isn't broke? I imagine there are thousands of good competent drivers out there that have gone even longer (I'm too young to have a much longer streak) without an at-fault accident. Only the incompetent bad drivers need this.
If insurance companies were to say we'll cut your insurance costs by 90% by using the computer driver, and when there's an accident, you don't have to pay increased premiums (ever, no matter how many you happen to have), then they might have a chance to get a few customers.
Perhaps the safety rate of the computers will be so good insurance isn't necessary and we could have Obamacare cover the costs (eliminating the insurance business all together). That sounds attractive to me.
Okay, I'm in!
Wait... but what happens if the computer gets me killed? All those savings will be for nothing!
Nevermind, count me out. :sick:
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Yes, but statistics show that the skies are a much safer medium to travel in than our nation's roadways. Also, there is much, MUCH less traffic. Not only are there more "lanes" in the sky, you have virtually unlimited vertical space and lanes on top of each other, whereas on land your typically don't have more than 2 or 3 levels at the most.
Also, there is still a professional pilot at the helm in an airplane (and falling asleep and leaving the autopilot on too long during the job is still frowned upon I hear). :P
How come that automation didn't land the plane for those poor tired pilots so that they didn't get into trouble with the bosses for missing their airport by a few hundred miles! :P
Also... might that automation be the cause of some of the few accidents that do occur? Sure, most of them are attributed to human error, and perhaps sometimes "over correction" But perhaps that over-correction occurs because they weren't paying full attention and control letting the computer do all the work, and when the alarm bells go off they over react and get scared and panicked.
I know if I was in a car enjoying automated driving, and suddenly the computer sounds an alarm that says "crash imminent, do something!," that would make me pretty nervous pretty fast.
Remember, it's my understanding that the best chess players can still beat the best computers. Until that changes, I'll keep my hands on the wheel; thank you very much.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
That is true, haven't seen any real data about autonomous cars and accident avoidance. I do like the idea of them for some drivers - and I believe many "drivers" would love to not have to be involved at all. Maybe mandatory for "new residents" from some areas. Would be good for motorcycling too - you get to retain control and maybe have less risk.
That's a really interesting article. I'm sure Akerson has a tough job, and I've increased my respect for him after reading his candid comments. It sounds like he would agree with what a lot of GM critics post here.
The problem is that without the full, "normal" BK, GM did not get enough "shock" and the old habits were not eradicated/fired/eliminated as much as they should have been. And Akerson is living with the consequences of that.
GM can become a great company. But in its current form it's still too big and bloated to be agile. And it has too many bad apples in the company (not just products, but employees). I wish him luck in cleaning things up.
How does the Google car handle the suddenly unexpected event? Yes, its pretty easy to train a kid to drive constantly in a group of cars going 70 mph down a straight interstate, but quite different to train the same kid how to avoid a sudden pileup or cross-lane intrusion.
Not sure, but I do know the cars have been driven autonomously in San Francisco. If you've ever driven there you know that this is FAR from rolling happily down an interstate.
To me, 300K miles with no accidents is pretty fantastic and says they must have it working quite well.
It's possible that the self-driving car could have a few situations where a human would do better. But if you look at it statistically, if there are 100 situations where the car is better and 3 where the human is better, you still have a net huge gain in safety with the automation. Think of all the distracted driving accidents that could be avoided.
Those that want to drive themselves could still do so, it would eventually be like people who like to ride horses today. :P
A subway makes MUCH more sense, carrying more people for a given amount of space and energy used.
I don't think that's true if you figure that automated driving can use existing roads, while subways require expensive right of ways and tunneling in established areas. Here in LA we have a fledgling subway of a few miles, and it cost mega $Billions for that little bit.
It sounds like Akerson gets it but the corporate culture may be too ingrained to easily change. I think the auto industry down in southern Michigan is pretty inbred too.
Like the autopilot cars - sometimes you need an override switch. Akerson is probably trying to figure out how to whack another layer of managers.
But IBM did a major overhaul of their business back in the day so it can be done.
if you figure that automated driving can use existing roads
That's just it - I can't imagine a self-driving car functioning on anything but new and dedicated lanes.
I watched a video on NatGeo about a car factory. They put magnets in the road every certain distance, that helps automated cars get around pre-programmed routes.
I just don't see the open road as ever being a controlled environment, not enough for full automation anyway.
New lanes would cost too much.
Tangent warning: just saw the remake of Total Recall yesterday, the original was better, but one of the neat futuristic ideas they had was that roads were layered on several levels, and vehicles ran both above and below the roads.
Showing my ignorance here, but doesn't LA have some layered roadways like that? Seems like I remember several cars being crushed on one of those roads during an earthquake several years ago. I know Japan has them...
Still, it's a great solution to insufficient real estate when building roads.
I think it would be great to hop in your car, get on the highway and hit the "autopilot" button. I just don't think it'll happen any time soon, at least, in any significant level.
I remember back in the 70's... Lots of folks thought we would be in space like the image foretold in 2001-A Space Oddessy, but no one had any conception of the basic cellphone.
Where's Fintail? Alaska Way in Seattle is an elevated highway with surface streets underneath right downtown. Earthquake hazard for sure. And it blocks a lot of the waterfront view. Then there's the Bay Bridge in the Bay Area with stacked lanes.
I did a "book" report back in grade school about a Popular Mechanics article, talking about how we'd have self-driving cars cruising down grassy swales. The timeline for that was 1980.
It sounds like Akerson gets it but the corporate culture may be too ingrained to easily change. I think the auto industry down in southern Michigan is pretty inbred too.
Yup, that sounds pretty much correct. I wonder if GM could relocate corporate HQ? Boeing did it. GM could use a little less Michigan - get out into the rest of the country a bit.
That's the point I was making - the Google vehicles are driving all over *regular roads*. They've driven over 300K miles without an accident on *regular roads*! - interstates, residential, drive throughs, stop signs, pedestrian crossings, San Francisco hills, urban environments, etc.
GM should go for this first, instead of doing their typical wait until somebody else (Ford?) does it, then advertise what's coming (Volt!, etc.) for 4 years while they scramble internally to put a product together.
If it did, what would critical wives do when they could no longer tell their husband to "Slow down, you're going too fast... Watch out for that other car... etc."???
Comments
I found it hilarious when Inside Line got their A8 back from an Audi certified body shop to repair a scratched door and the color was mismatched so badly it was easily seen on the online photo
I'm shocked Audi will stand behind even 15 body shops in the USA given the sad sorry state of body shops in the USA. If you can find 15 good ones in the entire country, your doing 14 better than me. I think insurance companies and their corruptive influence may be in part to blame for the typically horrid quality of your average body shop in this country, but that's another thing Americans can't seem to do well; body shop and paint work. The 15 number is higher than I'd of expected, I'd of figured maybe 1 good one for every 20 States, so about 2.5 in the country.
Honestly, I'm of the opinion that if there is more than $2,000 damage, they should just total the vehicle because I haven't seen any competence in a long time, let alone GREAT work, in the repair body shop industry in CA.
Well some people do get lucky on the reliability front. Lemko, I just know that with the styles of cars you like, you'd fall in love with the A8 or probably even the A6. I don't think any US metal really compares to the MB or Audi feel and interior quality. You should lease one for a few years, just to treat yourself. You only get one time around in life.
I know that I got rid of my '98 A4 earlier than I have any other car (88K) because I worried about long term maintenance. I've missed that car ever since. My '05 TL is nice but still no comparison. But then the Acura hasn't had any problems in 126K, either. Not even the tranny, contrary to those who think that all Honda and Acura trannys are gone by 50K or something.
Similarly to my Chevys...I drove 336K miles in Chevys with the 2.2 or 3.4 and never had the intake manifold gasket issue people think happened at 37K miles.
Did the 2.2 have an intake gasket problem as well? I thought it was mainly the 2.8/3.1/3.4 V-6, and a few years of non-supercharged Buick 3.8's?
One of my coworkers had the intake go on her Olds Silhouette minivan, but it was around the 90,000 mile mark. It was also given to her by her parents, and I don't think she took very good care of it.
Now that I think about it, I also know someone who had the issue with a 1999 Park Ave, but it happened around the 100,000 mile mark, if not higher.
Thinking back on it, I had two friends in college who had Cavalier Z-24's. Both of them had head gaskets blow. However, one of them was a 1986 bought used in 1993, and he was rough on cars. I have no idea how many miles it had on it. Another friend got an '89 Z-24 brand-new his freshman year in college, and it was dead by 1997, with around 90,000 miles on it. It was worth almost nothing in trade, so I think he just donated it.
It's funny though, how some things live up to their reputation and others don't. For example, I had a 1980 Malibu with the 229 V-6 and the lightweight, troubleprone THM200 automatic. Never a bit of trouble from the transmission. Mom bought that car new, gave it to me when I got my license, and I sold it at 100,000 miles. But then, I had a 1982 Cutlass Supreme, 231 V-6 that oddly had the beefier THM350, and had to get it rebuilt around 61-62,000 miles!
I guess I should add a little backstory here, though. My Granddad was a mechanic, and his brother in law worked at a transmission shop. Granddad was really anal about maintenance, so he'd have my Mom, and then me, take it in for a transmission servicing every year. Mom bought that car in Feb 1980, and I got it in Feb 1987, so it was 7 years old to the month, and had about 79,000 miles on it. So, it was getting serviced roughly every 11,000 miles. The owner's manual optimistically stated that it could go 100,000 miles between servicings...no wonder the things tended to fail prematurely!
In contrast, I bought the Cutlass used, in 1993, with about 61,000 miles on it, for $800. Almost immediately, it started acting up, holding the gears too long and shifting funny. I took it to the transmission shop, and the mechanic said they could get it running okay for about $150, but couldn't guarantee that it wouldn't start acting up again in about a year. It had a lot of metal shavings and silt that was clogging up the filter, restricting flow, and making it act up. So, either it was assembled poorly from the factory, or neglected. Or both. Anyway, they said they could rebuild it for around $675. I thought I'd have that car a long, long time, so I went for the rebuild. Probably shouldn't have, as the engine started to chew itself up internally around the 72,000 mile mark.
"An early example of Ewanick going around normal channels, one he spoke of frequently in interviews, was a decision to forgo GM's typical process for buying furniture and instead go with bargain retailer IKEA for his office at the company's headquarters, spending $2,000 when he was allowed about $50,000.
"While Joel was a risk-taker and big-picture kind of guy, he was not real concerned about the details and that indeed may have been his downfall," said AutoStratagem's Gorrell. "His leaving may suggest that GM will take a more conservative, business-as-usual approach in the future."
Ewanick may have shot too much from the hip with his Facebook and Superbowl ad cuts, and then doing the big soccer deal.
Soccer deal dispute was last straw for GM's Akerson in ousting marketer Ewanick
Bet he lands at Chrysler next.
I agree. I had a 1975 Pontiac Astre (Vega) and never had a single issue. I even managed to get a decent trade-in price when I got my next car.
Go figure....
Then again, I'm pretty much into maintaining a car, and maybe even moreso back then.
That's sort of what Ford is doing. The Fusion hybrid beat the old Camry hybrid (in EPA tests more so than real world, but still). I bet they try the same thing again when the new one comes out.
Either that, or just buy the systems from Toyota, like Nissan did with the Altima hybrid.
While I'd rather see GM innovate, rather than have to rely on someone else's accomplishments like that, I'd also rather them put out a good product, rather than do it half-cocked.
I came close to buying a used 2008 Altima hybrid around this time last year when my truck was giving me fits. It was at Fitzmall, for around $14-15K, with sunroof, leather, etc. I think it had around 40,000 miles on it. Seemed like a deal to me, but when I called about it, it had already been sold.
That Altima hybrid was a bargain. Oh well.
http://www.autos.ca/general-news/impala-police-cruisers-under-recall/
Affect anything made in the USA?
GM Sued for Not Recalling Nonpolice Chevrolet Impalas to Fix Spindle Rods (MSN)
BTW, Audi, Merc and BMW make Caddy look sick even with the newer offerings...wait! Caddy IS still sick! :P
Regards,
OW
ghardie, "Ford Freestar Transmission Problems" #1812, 2 Aug 2012 11:30 pm
Damn that GM.
That's sort of what Ford is doing. The Fusion hybrid beat the old Camry hybrid (in EPA tests more so than real world, but still). I bet they try the same thing again when the new one comes out.
Think of how much less Ford has spent on their hybrids than GM. Of course, they are spending their own money.
Heard an interesting podcast today. The theory is that with Google's computer-driven cars now up to 300K miles driven autonomously in CA without an accident while under computer control, the future is likely to be automated driving. We know Ford has the auto-park feature, and lots of makes have radar cruise control and lane departure detection. Cars are progressively getting more able to control themselves, and this change could happen a lot faster than we think - say 5-10 years for commercialization.
Once autonomous cars become common, you could drive with much more safety, follow other vehicles more closely (thereby increasing road capacity). You could also see services where a car drives to your house (a rental or a natural progression of something like Zipcar) and takes to you your destination, then leaves to go to the next customer. That opens up the possibility of "ordering up" whatever vehicle you need today - an SUV for a towing operation; a minivan for the family, a Mercedes for the hot date, etc. And the tremendous waste of vehicles, most sitting >90% of the time, could be substantially reduced. In this scenario, the quantity of vehicles produced might decrease drastically, and the auto makers (that survive) would be "transportation providers", not just "auto makers".
Where is GM in THAT scenario? Are they planning for anything like this?
Given their lack of plans for a gas crisis or drop in the economy, I would say they need to start thinking a lot more forward than they have ever shown the ability to.
So far, the self driving car scenario requires that there be a driver "available" behind the wheel.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11660144/1/general-motors-co-stock-hold-recommend- ation-reiterated-gm.html?puc=CNNMONEY&cm_ven=CNNMONEY
Regards,
OW
The company, he said, must operate as one: "We're a global company that operates as small little fiefdoms. That's got to stop."
GM's Akerson decries media leaks, tells workers to act with integrity (Detroit News)
Must be fun trying to run a company as big as GM under a microscope.
This is usually posturing but it does show signs of confidence.
How does the Google car handle the suddenly unexpected event? Yes, its pretty easy to train a kid to drive constantly in a group of cars going 70 mph down a straight interstate, but quite different to train the same kid how to avoid a sudden pileup or cross-lane intrusion.
I'm not making light of the Google work... It's pretty fantastic, and nothing like just riding along in my example above. I just have yet to see any footage of what a Google-like driver/car might do when the car immediately ahead loses a wheel at 70mph and starts rolling, in 4 lanes of one-way traffic. Maybe these test have been done, and I'm just not aware of them...
It's a little bit like living in a high crime area, and advocating for a much higher level of tax $$$ supported police protection for your neighbor's house, but not your own. Of course, you will indirectly benefit from the neighbor having a police car parked in his driveway 24/7.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/05/us-obama-ford-factbox-idUSTRE67458H201- 00805
I can't see this happening in my lifetime, and I'm in my mid 30's now. There is just no way, and way too many issues!
First, when the computer does get in an accident, who's computer is at fault? Who pays to insure the computers automated accidents when they do (and will) occur? I don't trust my life to automated driving, and I certainly won't trust my wallet to one.
I've driven over 16 years without an at-fault accident (and around 15K miles per year in that time on average). Why fix what isn't broke? I imagine there are thousands of good competent drivers out there that have gone even longer (I'm too young to have a much longer streak) without an at-fault accident. Only the incompetent bad drivers need this.
If insurance companies were to say we'll cut your insurance costs by 90% by using the computer driver, and when there's an accident, you don't have to pay increased premiums (ever, no matter how many you happen to have), then they might have a chance to get a few customers.
Perhaps the safety rate of the computers will be so good insurance isn't necessary and we could have Obamacare cover the costs (eliminating the insurance business all together). That sounds attractive to me.
Okay, I'm in!
Wait... but what happens if the computer gets me killed? All those savings will be for nothing!
Nevermind, count me out. :sick:
Also, there is still a professional pilot at the helm in an airplane (and falling asleep and leaving the autopilot on too long during the job is still frowned upon I hear). :P
How come that automation didn't land the plane for those poor tired pilots so that they didn't get into trouble with the bosses for missing their airport by a few hundred miles! :P
Also... might that automation be the cause of some of the few accidents that do occur? Sure, most of them are attributed to human error, and perhaps sometimes "over correction" But perhaps that over-correction occurs because they weren't paying full attention and control letting the computer do all the work, and when the alarm bells go off they over react and get scared and panicked.
I know if I was in a car enjoying automated driving, and suddenly the computer sounds an alarm that says "crash imminent, do something!," that would make me pretty nervous pretty fast.
Remember, it's my understanding that the best chess players can still beat the best computers. Until that changes, I'll keep my hands on the wheel; thank you very much.
How is this on-topic?
Uh, Volt competitor.
The problem is that without the full, "normal" BK, GM did not get enough "shock" and the old habits were not eradicated/fired/eliminated as much as they should have been. And Akerson is living with the consequences of that.
GM can become a great company. But in its current form it's still too big and bloated to be agile. And it has too many bad apples in the company (not just products, but employees). I wish him luck in cleaning things up.
Not sure, but I do know the cars have been driven autonomously in San Francisco. If you've ever driven there you know that this is FAR from rolling happily down an interstate.
To me, 300K miles with no accidents is pretty fantastic and says they must have it working quite well.
It's possible that the self-driving car could have a few situations where a human would do better. But if you look at it statistically, if there are 100 situations where the car is better and 3 where the human is better, you still have a net huge gain in safety with the automation. Think of all the distracted driving accidents that could be avoided.
Those that want to drive themselves could still do so, it would eventually be like people who like to ride horses today. :P
I've driven over 16 years without an at-fault accident (and around 15K miles per year in that time on average). Why fix what isn't broke?...
You could be right. Problem isn't your stellar driving record, it's the OTHER people that could kill you.
If we're both here in 10 years let's look again and see where it is going, and who is more correct. :P
Drivers may fight giving up control as intensely as the NRA fights giving up firearms.
Whatever the outcome, I don't think a 10 year time frame is long enough...
Maybe in 100 years...
A subway makes MUCH more sense, carrying more people for a given amount of space and energy used.
I don't think that's true if you figure that automated driving can use existing roads, while subways require expensive right of ways and tunneling in established areas. Here in LA we have a fledgling subway of a few miles, and it cost mega $Billions for that little bit.
Like the autopilot cars - sometimes you need an override switch. Akerson is probably trying to figure out how to whack another layer of managers.
But IBM did a major overhaul of their business back in the day so it can be done.
That's just it - I can't imagine a self-driving car functioning on anything but new and dedicated lanes.
I watched a video on NatGeo about a car factory. They put magnets in the road every certain distance, that helps automated cars get around pre-programmed routes.
I just don't see the open road as ever being a controlled environment, not enough for full automation anyway.
New lanes would cost too much.
Tangent warning: just saw the remake of Total Recall yesterday, the original was better, but one of the neat futuristic ideas they had was that roads were layered on several levels, and vehicles ran both above and below the roads.
Neat concept.
Still, it's a great solution to insufficient real estate when building roads.
I think it would be great to hop in your car, get on the highway and hit the "autopilot" button. I just don't think it'll happen any time soon, at least, in any significant level.
I remember back in the 70's... Lots of folks thought we would be in space like the image foretold in 2001-A Space Oddessy, but no one had any conception of the basic cellphone.
The future comes at us in odd ways sometimes...
I did a "book" report back in grade school about a Popular Mechanics article, talking about how we'd have self-driving cars cruising down grassy swales. The timeline for that was 1980.
Yup, that sounds pretty much correct. I wonder if GM could relocate corporate HQ? Boeing did it. GM could use a little less Michigan - get out into the rest of the country a bit.
Check out the link.
Google's driverless car
GM should go for this first, instead of doing their typical wait until somebody else (Ford?) does it, then advertise what's coming (Volt!, etc.) for 4 years while they scramble internally to put a product together.
That was right alongside the flying cars we'd use to commute from home to work.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If it did, what would critical wives do when they could no longer tell their husband to "Slow down, you're going too fast... Watch out for that other car... etc."???
Yell at the car's NAV screen?
Lol!