The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

In keeping with the effort to stay on topic, I started this thread on bumpers to move it from the fuel mileage thread. (34 MPG... Ford....)

I found a 1987 report at NHSTA claiming that the reduction to the 2-1/2 mph bumper was essentially a no cost item to the consumer.  I found another spot at NHSTA claiming the cost of the 1980 5 mph bumper was slightly higher than the unregulated 1972 and earlier bumpers.  I haven't found anything yet on insurance rates of the 70s, higher or lower, related to the bumper standards.  This would be comparing the no regulation bumpers to the 1970s 2-1/2 and 5 mph bumpers.

I found a few articles claiming the insurance companies want no damage bumpers at higher mph in order to justify denying whiplash claims.  I didn't look into their credibility but found the concept to be plausible.


http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/807072.html

An Evaluation of the Bumper Standard – As Modified in 1982


http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/Cars/Problems/studies/Bumper/Index.html

7) Has NHTSA conducted evaluations of the bumper standard? If so, what were the results?
Yes. NHTSA conducted an evaluation of the bumper standard in 1981. The evaluation determined the net benefits (the change in costs) to the consumer attributable to each successive standard (applicable through MY 1980) in relation to unregulated bumper systems in MY 1972 and prior years. The evaluation findings were that bumper systems complying with the standard requirements for model years 1979 and 1980 (most, if not all, bumpers were built to the 1980 "no damage" standard in 1979) tended to show net consumer losses - based on a 10-year car life - when compared to unregulated bumper systems. The costs of the 1979/1980 systems were between $150 and $200 higher than the unregulated bumpers (1972 and earlier model years).
In 1987, the agency conducted another evaluation of the bumper standard. The evaluation concluded that: (1) the costs to consumers did not change as a result of the modification of the bumper standard from 5 to 2.5 mph; (2) the net effect, over a car's 10 year life, is a small increase in repair costs, which is offset by a reduction in the cost of the bumpers; and (3) the change in the bumper standard did not compromise the protection of safety-related parts.

I replied in the other thread to this - before I saw this.

As additional comment;  look at who did that report.  1987.  Reagan.  Ring a bell??  This is the same administration who brought you the "Cure" for inflation.  They are the ones who performed the miracle of reducing 15%+ inflation to about 6% in just over a week.  The week before inauguration, inflation was 15% due to Jimmy Carter (supposedly) and the week after inauguration, the rate was 6%.  Gee, whiz, Batman, how could they do that miracle????  Easy.  They changed the way inflation was calculated.

NHTSA also references the IIHS testing done for many years - not just one show piece test.  And the people who ARE the insurance companies explicitly TELL you that rates go/went up when the bumpers became more expensive to repair.  (The Saturn report referenced in the other thread.)

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 18, 2010, 12:36:07 PM

Here is just a quick statement from IIHS.  The people who actually RAISE your insurance bills....
Check out the News Releases from Aug 27, 1997 and May 8, 1997.  This has been common knowledge and REPORTED in the REAL news (NOT anything with Murdoch in it) for 20 years or more. 

So, we moved from a 5mph bumper standard with no damage, to allowing car makers to do whatever they want in the name of "deregulation" ala Reagan.  Now there is some kind of progress.   Saturn was the best in 1997 at $655 damage, while the Hyundai was over $3000. 

And the luxury guys?  Well, hold onto your panties...a walking speed impact - 5 mph - on a Lexus caused $6190 in damage.

http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/bumpers.html

How is THAT hopey/changey thing working out for ya'??



I replied in the other thread to this - before I saw this.

As additional comment;  look at who did that report.  1987.  Reagan.  Ring a bell??  This is the same administration who brought you the "Cure" for inflation.  They are the ones who performed the miracle of reducing 15%+ inflation to about 6% in just over a week.  The week before inauguration, inflation was 15% due to Jimmy Carter (supposedly) and the week after inauguration, the rate was 6%.  Gee, whiz, Batman, how could they do that miracle????  Easy.  They changed the way inflation was calculated.

NHTSA also references the IIHS testing done for many years - not just one show piece test.  And the people who ARE the insurance companies explicitly TELL you that rates go/went up when the bumpers became more expensive to repair.  (The Saturn report referenced in the other thread.)

A lot can happen between 1987 and 1997.  Five years of Bill Clinton ring a bell?  (I can play that game too.)  I don't accept any relevance to the topic at hand by your rant on Reagan.  Are you related to Ruff?

The authors of that 1987 report are listed as Warren G. La Heist and Frank G. Ephraim.  I don't see President Ronald Reagan listed in the authors column

Where does the NHTSA say the manufacturers could do whatever they wanted to do?  The regulations were relaxed, not obliterated.  In 1982, the line was changed on front bumpers from 5 to 2-1/2 mph.   SUVs and trucks are excluded due to potential operational requirements for those vehicles.


So how fast do you want to be able to be hit with no damage?  5?  6?  7-3/4?  How much damage will you allow at say, 1 mph over the allowable impact speed?  Someone has to draw the line somewhere. 


FWIW, 5 mph is a fairly brisk walk, a 12 minute mile.  I walk most days at lunch for about 2 miles.  4 mph is a piece of cake. 5 mph is a bit tough.  (Walking, not jogging.) Walk blindfolded into a brick wall and see what happens to your face.  I must agree that $6200 is a bit much.  Which model Lexus?

Quote
And the people who ARE the insurance companies explicitly TELL you that rates go/went up when the bumpers became more expensive to repair.   

This is pretty much what I claimed between pre 1972 no regulation bumpers and post 1972 regulated bumpers.  There were additional crumply things added (Mercedes brags about it.) that made it more expensive to fix cars but reduced injury rates about that same timeframe.

"I remember reading that the 5 mph bumper made premiums go up.  It turned out that the structure to prevent damage at 5 mph was a lot more expensive to replace or fix than the older stuff and enough "accidents" were over 5 mph that the average repair costs increased.  That's been a while, probably when there were still actually bumpers."

I am not fond of the design of many present cars where half the back end of the car is "bumper".   It is another unintended result of regulations that get too specific and let manufacturers meet the letter of the regulation rather than the original (usually good) intentions. 


hopey/changey ???

There is no real regulation any more.  Read the reference about the Lexus model (you asked for the reference.  I found it and gave it to you.  Want me to read it to you, too?  That's entitlement talk, if you ask me.)

8 years of Bill Clinton.  4 years of smaller deficits followed by 4 years of actual surplus.  Ring a bell??

I thought you lived through that era?  If you are younger than that, or even if not, go look at the underside of a bumper from that era.  Pick any 1980 +/- 5 years GM, Ford, or Chrysler to check out.  They had brilliant designs that not only were very cost effective - cheap!  But were extremely effective.  They were much more effective than anything built today and much more robust, simpler, and cheaper.  Golden age of bumpers.  There was a cross bracket that supported two tubes filled with a spring mechanism where the bumper was mounted.  You could think of it as a "floating" bumper.  Never got one completely apart, but there may have been a damper in there, too (shock absorber).  It was very much like the floor at the Cain's in overall concept, only horizontal.

If you were around at that time, then you didn't actually hear that the bumpers made insurance go up.  What you heard was the ranting and raving about how government regulation of any sort is bad.

Ruff?  Don't know a Ruff.

Two can play that game...??  Well, sadly it isn't a game.  It is very serious stuff.  It is the same mental attitude that led to us not adopting seat belts in cars as mandatory until the late 1960's.  It is the same mental attitude that fought ANY kind of pollution control on engines.  It took decades before there was even something as simple as EGR (exhaust gas recirculation).  Or electronic ignition (remember when tune up intervals were 10,000 miles.  And spark plugs HAD to be replaced then?  No 100,000 mile tune ups back in the good old days).  Or CAFE standards.  (Kind of related to where this all started back at the mileage truck.)  Or air bags.  Or child seats. Or crumple zones. Or ABS brakes??

Little side note;  seat belts were invented in the mid 1930's but it took over 30 years before they were required to be present in US cars.  Not required to be used - just present in the car.

Maybe if we had kept the CAFE plan in place, everyone could enjoy 30 mpg now.  There is NO excuse not to.  Oops, sorry.... legitimate excuse.

How fast do you want to hit something without damage?  How about just leaving it like it was and not regressing?  There have also been words put out by the same IIHS guys talking about the number of 5mph bumper thumps versus more serious damage causing accidents.  It is a huge percentage.  So, if damage is eliminated by just that one thing, that we HAD and gave away... then that is kind of a no brainer.  Except for those with no brain.


 

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 18, 2010, 09:05:23 PM
There is no real regulation any more.  Read the reference about the Lexus model (you asked for the reference.  I found it and gave it to you.  Want me to read it to you, too?  That's entitlement talk, if you ask me.)

You gave me a 3 page list of articles, some with good titles, some not. None highlighting a $6200 Lexus loss.  You could have highlighted the one you were referring to.  Now that I am home and not on the company's time I could spend the time looking.

Quote
8 years of Bill Clinton.  4 years of smaller deficits followed by 4 years of actual surplus.  Ring a bell??

Jimmy Carter could have ridden that era to similar results.  Why didn't Bill get some (more?) of Ronnie's horrible deeds undone?

Quote
I thought you lived through that era?  If you are younger than that, or even if not, go look at the underside of a bumper from that era.  Pick any 1980 +/- 5 years GM, Ford, or Chrysler to check out.  They had brilliant designs that not only were very cost effective - cheap!  But were extremely effective.  They were much more effective than anything built today and much more robust, simpler, and cheaper.  Golden age of bumpers.  There was a cross bracket that supported two tubes filled with a spring mechanism where the bumper was mounted.  You could think of it as a "floating" bumper.  Never got one completely apart, but there may have been a damper in there, too (shock absorber).  It was very much like the floor at the Cain's in overall concept, only horizontal.

I lived through the transition to unleaded gas.  I lived through the transition to 5 and 2-1/2 mph bumpers.  I bought a brand new 1981 Buick Skylark that I retired a few years ago (and still have) with 278,000 miles. (I was trying for 300,000 mi.) I have been fortunate enough to have not tested a bumper any more than a tap at a stop light, a small dent in a 66 Buick Skylark rear bumper that I saw no necessity to fix. I also had a 69 Skylark that I bought (used) with a small dent in the rear quarter panel under the bumper that I never got fixed. 

From the 1981 Buick Skylark Service Manual  Section 2B, Bumpers

"BUMPER ENERGY ABSORBING UNITS
   The absorbing capability for both front and rear bumper systems on the X Series is achieved through two energy absorbing devices in each bumper.  These units convert the energy of an impact into heat and restoration. (See figure 2B6 and 2B7).
    The Energy Absorbing Device consists of two main subassemblies; the piston tube assembly and the cylinder tube assembly.  The piston tube assembly is filled with an inert gas under pressure and consists of a bumper bracket, piston tube, orifice, piston seal, piston, and stop ring. The cylinder tube assembly is filled with a hydraulic fluid and consists of a frame bracket, cylinder tube, mounting stud, and metering pin."

The manual then describes the operation during an impact.  Almost half of the page is in bold print with cautions on the dangers of servicing these units. Copyright issues prevent me from scanning a few pages from the book.

I am not contesting the fact that the early 80's bumpers were good, only that over the fleet of vehicles that they were less expensive.  If you had a series of 5 mph or less collisions, you were a winner.  If you got hit above 5 mph to maybe 10, your (insurance co's) losses were greater than before.  The reason I can't cite a reference for my figures is because I remember it (as a surprise) rather than as a history research project.  I didn't see any thing very old (1970s or older) in the link you posted. The 81 GM cars also had plastic body pieces in the deflection area of the bumper that rotted away after many years.  OK if you trade cars frequently.  One of the reasons my 81 is parked is because I can't get those parts.  I could spend $1000 to fix what's wrong mechanically and still have a junky looking car. Right now it hides the trash cans in the driveway. 

Quote
If you were around at that time, then you didn't actually hear that the bumpers made insurance go up.  What you heard was the ranting and raving about how government regulation of any sort is bad.

I was there, as an adult. You and I have different memories.

I thought it would get this picture too.

Edit: Forgot to add, that black trim strip cost about $60 a few months after the car was new. Someone tagged it in the parking lot.  List price of the car was a bit under $10,000. I got it for a bit less than $9000.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 18, 2010, 09:19:55 PM
Ruff?  Don't know a Ruff.

Too bad, I think you would like him.

Quote
Two can play that game...??  Well, sadly it isn't a game.

Blaming everything on Reagan is the game I'm referring to.  (Nothing left for Bush?)

Quote
It is very serious stuff.  It is the same mental attitude that led to us not adopting seat belts in cars as mandatory until the late 1960's.  It is the same mental attitude that fought ANY kind of pollution control on engines.  It took decades before there was even something as simple as EGR (exhaust gas recirculation).  Or electronic ignition (remember when tune up intervals were 10,000 miles.  And spark plugs HAD to be replaced then?  No 100,000 mile tune ups back in the good old days).  Or CAFE standards.  (Kind of related to where this all started back at the mileage truck.)  Or air bags.  Or child seats. Or crumple zones. Or ABS brakes??

Little side note;  seat belts were invented in the mid 1930's but it took over 30 years before they were required to be present in US cars.  Not required to be used - just present in the car.

You can quit the lecture mode.

Seat belts were available in the early 60s.  62 Chevy Bel Air, 63 Buick LeSabre, 65 Buick LeSabre 400, 66 Buick Skylark, 69 Buick Skylark (with clumsy shoulder belt too).  People didn't want to wear them.  Remember ignition interlocks?  Couldn't start the car unless you were seated with your seat belt on.  People didn't like that either. The refusal of people to wear active restraints (seat belts) led to passive (airbag) restraints that cost more.  I happen to believe in seat belts so you won't get an argument from me there.

The manufacturers were actually working on pollution controls in the 60s. Our 63 LeSabre had a PCV valve instead of a road draft tube like the 63 Falcon my sister put up with for a few years.  Mandatory pollution controls and schedules led to poor drivability and reduced gas mileage in the early 70s.  The thermodynamics of the gasoline engine dictate that (up to a point, I think about 15:1 for spark ignition without direct fuel injection) higher compression ratios are more efficient.  We couldn't make high octane gas economically without tetraethyl lead at the time so compression ratios were reduced from about 10 to 8.5 to match the available fuel supply. (I think Amoco had a high octane, no lead gas but it was relatively expensive.)   Eventually the engineering caught up but we had to put up with junk for a few years to meet physics by legislation.  I remember 10,000 mile tune ups.  I put on an add on electronic module that worked with the the existing distributor and got 15,000 mi from a set of plugs. My dad remembered driving from Phila, PA to Key West, FL in the 40s. He and his friend (later my uncle) had to stop every few hundred miles to file the points in the Model A.  My dad's 1940 Olds needed a ring job at well less than 100,000 miles.  Even by the 50s you could go that far without an engine overhaul.  Our family had a 54 Buick Special that went to about 120,000 miles without major engine work.  Automatic transmissions were another deal.  1940s and early 50s Buick brakes sucked. Without government regulation, they took on the task of making them better and by the late 50s had a good brake system (on the upper series cars), almost as good as the disk brake system they were forced to put on by public demand in the late 60s.  People resisted crumple zones because they cost more to fix.  I remember the arguments well. Piece of junk car crumples and costs a bunch to fix even in a minor accident.  I didn't care for Ralph Nader or his methods but he did cause many safety improvements.  Collapsable steering columns and split circuit brake cylinders about 1967 come to mind.  Some European cars may have already had them. I'm thinking Saab and Volvo and possibly Mercedes.  The point is that the car manufacturers were capable of improvements that consumers demanded without government mandates.  Some came faster by government mandate in spite of consumer demand.  I think EGR was done for NOx.  It contributed to poor drivability in its early days.  I think you can thank the space race for many of the improvements in cars the last 20 or so years. The technology trickled down (Reagan reference) from really expensive rockets to automobiles and a gazillion other things.

Quote
Maybe if we had kept the CAFE plan in place, everyone could enjoy 30 mpg now.  There is NO excuse not to.  Oops, sorry.... legitimate excuse.

We're getting there in spite of CAFE.  Consumers are demanding it.  Manufacturers are providing better mileage WITH good drivability and performance that we Americans demand.  The price of gas/diesel might be a driving factor.

Quote
How fast do you want to hit something without damage?  How about just leaving it like it was and not regressing?  There have also been words put out by the same IIHS guys talking about the number of 5mph bumper thumps versus more serious damage causing accidents.  It is a huge percentage.  So, if damage is eliminated by just that one thing, that we HAD and gave away... then that is kind of a no brainer.  Except for those with no brain.

Someone had to pick a number (or numbers 5 front, 2-1/2 rear initially).  That number was re-evaluated in 1982.  I have no reason to disbelieve the results of that study fleet wide.  Remember I said I've had nothing more than a bumper tap.  I don't drive professionally but have put a few miles on cars since the 60s.  How much did it cost me to have you get no damage for your 4.99 mph hit?  How much did it cost the person that got hit at 7 mph and had to do the pre 1972 fix PLUS the more expensive bumper.  Maybe people are driving even more stupidly now that they know they can't get hurt (airbags, don't need to wear no stinkin' seat belts), their cars will stop on a dime on any slick surface (ABS) and their cars won't get damaged.  It may be time to re-evaluate bumper speeds and drivers.

Edit: corrected I to It in last sentence.
Edit 2: Added 65 LeSabre to the seat belts list of cars we had.  Kept my dad's face out of the windshield when hit head on at about 20 mph on a snowy road in 67.  Dad had the lap belt on and only got two bruised elbows.  The car was totaled.

Quote from: Red Arrow on March 18, 2010, 11:39:10 PM
Too bad, I think you would like him.

Probably. ;D 
But we're two completely different people with very different views on life; who just happened to agree on several aspects of political history.... gee, from now on, I suppose I'll have to search for "Ruf" or "Ruff" every time I login.  

Quote
Blaming everything on Reagan is the game I'm referring to.  (Nothing left for Bush?)

I don't blame everything on Reagan.

I voted for him over Fritz-n-tits for '84 in large part as a reaction to the howling liberal crazies who kept telling us that re-electing Reagan was going to lead to a nuclear holocaust, the wholesale dismantling of social security, welfare, women's rights, labor unions, etc, etc....

I believe this economic crisis is very similar to what I remember and experienced as a high school/college student in the early 80s.  I remember wearing a 3-piece suit to a job interview for Arby's-- on a 100-degree Oklahoma summer day.... I was that desperate.

And yes, Reagan raised my taxes.
And he got away with it, in ways that George H. W. Bush or any other politician couldn't....

These days, I enjoy blaming the political and mythological deification of Ronald Reagan.  And I especially blame it's corresponding political template (used by both Republicans and Dems) for much of our current problems.  
Heck, Chicago's Mayor Daley used it for years; and even Blago used it.

When I moved to Chicago back in the day, I asked a dem political volunteer what made Bill Clinton so special...... he said, "Bill Clinton will be the best Republican president we've ever had."

Alright.
Back to car bumpers....

Quote from: JeffM on March 19, 2010, 12:01:21 PM
These days, I enjoy blaming the political and mythological deification of Ronald Reagan.

You too, eh? ;)

Reagan (and Bush the Elder) had a big thing going for them that Clinton never needed to use and Bush the Younger apparently lacked: The ability to do something necessary, but unpopular. They both raised taxes at great political cost to themselves.

I say that only to point out that even Reagan wasn't all bad. He did some good at the same time he was doing all his damage.

I'm usually one of the ones to get side tracked but I'll try to pull this back on topic..

I went to the car show this evening and paid special attention to bumpers.  I stand by my remarks regarding cars from the 60s through the early and maybe late 90s.  The new cars are, however, putting their best face and teeth forward in a fist fight regarding bumpers.

The styling is probably more attractive than a 5 mph bumper hanging out but I sure wouldn't want to have to fix one with a collision at any speed. About the only car there with anything resembling a bumper was the Mustang.  I suspect that is because it draws its styling cues from the early Mustangs. New Lincolns like the MKZ lead with the grill and headlights. A couple of Jeeps sort of had a bumperish protrusion.  A couple of trucks had bumperish items and they aren't required to have them.

Whew!

Edit:  The newest car I own is a 1998 Buick Regal GS.

Quote from: Red Arrow on March 19, 2010, 11:48:49 PM
A couple of trucks had bumperish items and they aren't required to have them.

Remember when trucks used to come without bumpers? :P

Other issues with bumper standards in the US have to do with the differing height of car and truck bumpers and that we call things like SUVs "trucks" because they're built on a truck frame, even when they are by no means meant for use as a work truck.

Quote from: nathanm on March 20, 2010, 02:27:43 PM
Remember when trucks used to come without bumpers? :P

Other issues with bumper standards in the US have to do with the differing height of car and truck bumpers and that we call things like SUVs "trucks" because they're built on a truck frame, even when they are by no means meant for use as a work truck.

I wasn't born in OK so I am not a truck freak.  I don't remember trucks without front bumpers but won't deny they were delivered that way.  I certainly remember trucks without rear bumpers. There were a bunch of aftermarket rear bumpers that usually got added.  By the time they got on the road, I wouldn't want to hit the rear of any of those trucks with the front of my car.

I think early SUVs were built on truck frames to avoid automobile levels of pollution controls, and probably bumper regulations. Most SUVs have become more car-like over the years to appeal to people from states other than Oklahoma and Texas.

The 5-MPH Bumpers worked good if they got hit, but what was a problem is that in crashes objects offten slid over the bumpers and hit the grill unless the vehicle had bumper guards that reached up high. Also, in chain reaction crashes when a string of cars slam on their brakes the front end of the cars dip down as the rear end raises up, so the diped down front bumper of one car slams into the raised rear end of the car ahead of it and the force slams the back end of the car into the front grill as it over-rides the bumper. If two of those 5-mph bumpers hit square on with no dipping they can withstand a 10 mph crash, or each bumper can take a 5-mph crash into a wall. I understand they changed the bumper requirements to 2.5 MPH to save weight & money.

Red Arrow brings up a good point about engines lasting longer today, but there is reason for that from what I have been told, todays engines can be machined better with smoother surfaces and better valve seats- But more important is that todays oils are so much better than the oils of long ago. A 1954 Buick's engine  had to run using oil that did not fight sludge and protect the parts like the oils of today- after some miles the sludge and grit started to attack engine parts resulting in overhauls and valve jobs under 100,000 miles, plus the cars ran with lower thermostats and oil filters were not as good. I heard that if you  take a brand new 1954 engine and run it with todays oils it will also run over 100,000 miles easy. As for the bumpers todays cars are all about the same, the bumpers really offer no protection at all, Neal Bortz mentioned on his radio show that he would never buy another BMW, he said he hit a aluminum gate post at 3 mph and the gate was slightly damaged BUT, his BMW required $13,000 in repairs.

Quote from: sauerkraut on March 21, 2010, 01:40:50 PM
Neal Bortz mentioned on his radio show that he would never buy another BMW, he said he hit a aluminum gate post at 3 mph and the gate was slightly damaged BUT, his BMW required $13,000 in repairs.

Maybe if he had been watching where he was going instead of his speedometer, he wouldn't have hit the post.  $13,000 is still a lot of repair money.

Poor little Bortz....

Engines have had a lot of help from a lot of directions, including oil, filters, electronic ignition, and just plain old unleaded gas.  Higher octane, by definition comes about due to additives that slow the speed of burn of gasoline.  Contaminants.  MTBE is the big one today, versus lead from long ago.  And it burns much, much cleaner.

1954 Buick was helped a lot by having insert bearings.  Sometime just before that (year or two or three) they still had babbit (lead with nickel) bearings that would work ok, but if you went much more than 60mph for extended periods, you would get a couple thousand miles out of the engine.  Yep, 2000.
Hold it under 60 and you could go 50, 60, or even 100,000 if you were careful.

The reason the cars would slide up over the bumpers was because they were going OVER 5mph.  Under that, they would bump.  And not do $6,000 worth of damage.

Big trucks with high bumpers is another one of those things lost to the mists of time... deregulation at all costs.  Especially when it can put people in danger and give the illusion to "independence" from government intrusion.

Quit lecture mode?  Well how would any reality intrude here?

Just like I said.  Available.  Not required to be present.  In fact, an extra cost option until mid/late sixties.  

US manufacturers were working on engine technology in the sixties - finally.  After being required to.

Mandatory was the ONLY way it was ever going to happen.  And I drove a bunch of those cars.  Some were much worse than others.  But they were still a ton of fun.  1968 Corvette with 427, 4 speed close ratio was unbelievable for a young punk kid.  (Me.)  Got do drive one on occasion.  Wow!

See how China is today with their pollution?  That would be us today - still - without mandatory.  And just think of all the increases in technology and economic activity that would not have resulted if it had not happened.  (Just like we have lost the solar and wind power industries in this country due to Reagan/Bush/Bush policies.)

And at the same time we were struggling our way through those bad performing cars, complements of GM, Ford, and Chrysler - Honda brought us the CVCC engine.  At more miles per gallon than anyone could imagine.  I remember Honda (or one of their engineering company associates) put one of those style heads on a regular old 350 cu.in. Chevy engine and the thing got about 23 mpg.  PLUS passed ALL the pollution control standards about 5 years ahead of due date.  (This was early 1970's)  Adt it performed much better than the regular old "good GM feeling" Chevy engine.  No excuses for driveability problems!!

Revisionist history alert - comment has been made that brakes were improved without government regulation.
No GM brakes were worth the metal it took to make them until the mid 60's.  I have driven AND worked on many of all era's from the 30's to today's.  And other manufacturers, too.  Jaguar had a disk in 1961 XKE that wasn't too bad, but was inboard from wheel, so a real pain.  If memory serves, you had to drop the entire rear end to get to its brakes.  Never got to work on Corvette disk.  Bet it was ok.

WITH government regulation, they finally started to make improvements.

Ralph Nader and his methods caused no safety improvements.  They did coerce/shame/whatever the government into finally doing something along the lines of safety regulations.

The point is that the car manufacturers were capable of improvements but that NO car manufacturer in the US actually made any of those improvements until forced to.  And in fact, fought long, hard, expensive, drawn out battles to resist EVERY safety/pollution change EVER put in place.

Space race has been stagnant and done nothing in the last 20 years.  NASA has become an over-bloated bureacracy that has trouble getting out of its own way.  VERY sad.  98% (or more) of the innovation/invention from space was before 20 years ago.  And you are right, there was a TON of it!!

In case anyone would like to argue the above statement about NASA, good!  Please do.  But before we start, find ONE thing that is new/innovative/inventive or "gee whiz" that they have done since 1985.  (That gives a 25 year window to work in!)  Something that is NOT derivative or repetitious of what they had been doing in 1984 and before.  (Upgrading the shuttle computers from IBM 360's is not innovative, it is derivative).

Ok, ok,  I will stop now.  Looking forward to replies!!!

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 24, 2010, 07:59:55 PM
1954 Buick was helped a lot by having insert bearings.  Sometime just before that (year or two or three) they still had babbit (lead with nickel) bearings that would work ok, but if you went much more than 60mph for extended periods, you would get a couple thousand miles out of the engine.  Yep, 2000.
Hold it under 60 and you could go 50, 60, or even 100,000 if you were careful.

That's probably why the big (320 in^3) straight 8s were slow turners with lots of torque (for the time).  I couldn't find any RPM vs Road Speed data.  Buick's V8 was introduced in some models in 53, all had them in 54.   That series of   The  straight 8 had a year run  of about 18 years.  It was time to upgrade.  Styling was heavily involved due to the trend of shorter, lower hoods that wouldn't fit a long, tall straight 8.  

Quote
Big trucks with high bumpers is another one of those things lost to the mists of time... deregulation at all costs.  Especially when it can put people in danger and give the illusion to "independence" from government intrusion.

What I saw was that for off-road work angle of entry to a ditch etc made standard bumper heights impractical for trucks that were actually used as work vehicles.  Same excuse for SUVs.  The fact that most never leave a paved surface doesn't seem to matter.

Quote
Quit lecture mode?  Well how would any reality intrude here?

There's a difference between presenting information and talking down to people.

Quote
Just like I said.  Available.  Not required to be present.  In fact, an extra cost option until mid/late sixties.  

Seat belts are something I believe in.  I agree they should have been mandatory sooner.   I think they help protect me from you by keeping you behind the wheel.  Some around here disagree but they have never driven on country roads back east (PA) with unexpected bumps and curves.  If someone wants to die needlessly in a car wreck, I guess that's their right as long as they don't take someone else with them.

Quote
US manufacturers were working on engine technology in the sixties - finally.  After being required to.

What regulation required the changes from the late 30s to the 50s?  The 60s were the next generation of changes being worked on.  Technology changes would have happened anyway.

BUICK - The Post War Years,  Norbye & Dunne, 1978, p120:

"Preliminary studies for the new generation of V8 engines began in 1962.  ... There was no Clean Air Act at the time the design was started, and no emission standards had been set by the date of production startup."  Earlier on the page a mention was made of "new emission control standards coming into effect in 1968."

Quote
Mandatory was the ONLY way it was ever going to happen.  And I drove a bunch of those cars.  Some were much worse than others.  But they were still a ton of fun.  1968 Corvette with 427, 4 speed close ratio was unbelievable for a young punk kid.  (Me.)  Got do drive one on occasion.  Wow!

Specific pollutants, yes.  Acid rain precipitated by catalytic convertors were an unintended result.  Then fuel sulphur had to lowered. I believe that engine efficiency would have been improved, lowering overall pollution by burning less fuel, longer service intervals and engine life would have been improved as marketing tools even without government mandates.

Quote
And at the same time we were struggling our way through those bad performing cars, complements of GM, Ford, and Chrysler - Honda brought us the CVCC engine.  At more miles per gallon than anyone could imagine.  I remember Honda (or one of their engineering company associates) put one of those style heads on a regular old 350 cu.in. Chevy engine and the thing got about 23 mpg.  PLUS passed ALL the pollution control standards about 5 years ahead of due date.  (This was early 1970's)  Adt it performed much better than the regular old "good GM feeling" Chevy engine.  No excuses for driveability problems!!

Imagine, a 2000 pound Civic CVCC with about a 1200 cc engine getting better gas mileage than a 3500 to 4000 pound car with 5700 cc V8. I think the price and availability of gasoline may have made people trade in a car that would take a family of 5, 2 dogs, a week's worth of clothes, a picnic table, a portable charcoal grill, and the ability to haul a 3000 pound boat for a car like the Civic. I am not belittling the Civic, it was/is a good car, but its capabilities were different.  (1977 Civic: 2000 lb, $3000.  1977 Accord: 3000 lb, $4000.  Numbers are approximate from my memory detailing new cars at AI Honda in the late 70s)  I have no information on the Honda CVCC style heads on the Chevy engine.  Sometimes a successful "proof of concept" has a difficult time making it to economical production models.

Quote
Revisionist history alert - comment has been made that brakes were improved without government regulation.
No GM brakes were worth the metal it took to make them until the mid 60's.  I have driven AND worked on many of all era's from the 30's to today's.  And other manufacturers, too.  Jaguar had a disk in 1961 XKE that wasn't too bad, but was inboard from wheel, so a real pain.  If memory serves, you had to drop the entire rear end to get to its brakes.  Never got to work on Corvette disk.  Bet it was ok.

WITH government regulation, they finally started to make improvements.

BUICK - The Post War Years,  Norbye & Dunne, 1978, p39-41

""In 1950 we developed test vehicles for brake research ," Frank Daley explained to us. "That was when the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) brake standards started."

"From having had one of the poorest, if not absolute worst brake systems in the industry, Buick suddenly had the best by far. "By 1960," recalls Frank Daley,..."

There is no mention of government regulations on brakes in this era, just SAE.  Buick started their brake program because bad brakes were affecting sales.  The "best brakes" were, however only seen on the full size cars.  The Skylark (same as Chevelle, Cutlas, Tempest) got some finned drums until front discs became standard.  I used to call the brakes on my 66 Skylark GS as good for 1/2 panic stop from 70 mph (due to fade).  The car would still stop but the fade was very evident.  I never saw that on the 63 LeSabre, 65 LeSabre, or 67 LeSabre, all with drums all around.

Sidenote: My brother had a 1960 Triumph (car) TR-3A with standard hydraulic front disc brakes.  Supposedly the first production car with standard front disc brakes, even ahead of Jag.

I also heard via an acquaintance that the Delaware State Troopers thought the MOPAR police interceptor brakes in the early 70s weren't worth a crap at 150 mph.

Quote
Ralph Nader and his methods caused no safety improvements.  They did coerce/shame/whatever the government into finally doing something along the lines of safety regulations.

OK, play semantics.  I believe if Nadar had not been the activist he was, the government would have been much slower to react, if they would have at all.  Just my opinion.

Quote
The point is that the car manufacturers were capable of improvements but that NO car manufacturer in the US actually made any of those improvements until forced to.  And in fact, fought long, hard, expensive, drawn out battles to resist EVERY safety/pollution change EVER put in place.

Through the mid sixties or so we disagree.  By the time of the late sixties and later I mostly agree.  I believe some was resistance to how much, how soon.  Some was just plain disagreement.

Quote
Space race has been stagnant and done nothing in the last 20 years.  NASA has become an over-bloated bureacracy that has trouble getting out of its own way.  VERY sad.  98% (or more) of the innovation/invention from space was before 20 years ago.  And you are right, there was a TON of it!!

In case anyone would like to argue the above statement about NASA, good!  Please do.  But before we start, find ONE thing that is new/innovative/inventive or "gee whiz" that they have done since 1985.  (That gives a 25 year window to work in!)  Something that is NOT derivative or repetitious of what they had been doing in 1984 and before.  (Upgrading the shuttle computers from IBM 360's is not innovative, it is derivative).

Ok, ok,  I will stop now.  Looking forward to replies!!!

Yep.  It would be difficult to have improvements to cars 20 years ago using space developments that would have happened only 10 years ago.  What is your difficulty with derivative developments?  It's difficult to have derivative developments from something that never happened.

Edit: see red in main text

I "live and breathe" the kind of improvements done derivatively.  Everything used in my job has realistically appeared in the last 20-25 years.  But all improvements to things "invented"  50 to 90 years ago.  Literally gone from mechanical pencil to computer drawing, in 3D even.  It would be nice to have something truly, actually new once in a while, too.  I missed that boat with the invention of semiconductors in the late '40s.

Lack of focus moment -  someone in the neighborhood is grilling barbeque chicken out and the smell is making me crazy!

That Chevy was an amazing thing.  I had been driving "that" car for over a decade by then ('52 Chevy, 54 Ford, 57 Chevy, 58 Chevy, 57 Chevy panel van, 61 Chevy, 61 Chevy panel van, 63 Buick Skylark, 61 Volkswagen, 65 Buick Wildcat, 66 Olds Delta, 68 Olds Delta, 70 Cutlass, 72 Delta, 75 Delta, 78 Olds Delta ...well you get the idea.  All but 5 of those were family cars - 6 mine - that I put about 300,000 miles on in about a 5-6 year time.  (You can probably see a theme here and may well be able to understand the complete and total betrayal someone like me feels from GM due to their complete incompetence in recent years.  This doesn't include the list of Buick and Olds of one close family member starting in 1931 - until moving to Ford in 1989 - that I didn't get to drive.)  I did get to have a '32 Ford Vicky and a '33 Packard to use/work on for a while, both of which were sorry examples of automobiles compared to today, but were wonderful for the time.  Still way cool to drive.  Packard steering was kind of funky, but their straight 8 was in a very fun car to drive.  So was the Vicky.

And yet, none of that kind of Chevy ever appeared, even though it was offered by Honda for licensing.  It would have gotten in the way of the cozy big car/big oil relationships. 

There were also a bunch of garage shop hybrids makers out there in the 70's that did some amazing things.  There was one guy who put electric motor, batteries and generator in an Opel Cadet (poor man's Corvette) and got about 70mpg in his hybrid.  If you are interested, it was published in Mother Earth News Magazine in about 1977.  It can be found with a little digging on their web site today, complete with really crude plans.  But then it took another 20 years before a car company got serious about it.  And that was Toyota.  Another lost market/economic development/jobs opportunity. 

I see Ford is coming on strong bragging about their hybrid technology.  The same technology they licensed from Toyota.  Unless they decided to innovate themselves recently.

And ALL those cars had crap for bumpers until the 1978 Olds Delta (75 Olds Delta was about halfway between crap and reasonable).  About the time the regulations started.

Through mid sixties - seat belts.  Prime example of "fighting and screaming" all the way.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 25, 2010, 08:45:23 PM
  There was one guy who put electric motor, batteries and generator in an Opel Cadet (poor man's Corvette) and got about 70mpg in his hybrid. 

I remember a guy (electronics tech, I hate to say) from my Navy days.  He wanted to put an electric motor and battery set in a car as a pure electric.  He was then going to put a generator on the propulsion motor to recharge the propulsion batteries as he drove the car.  I'm not sure I convinced him that his plan was essentially perpetual motion.

Yeah.... that ain't gonna work.

Solar cells on the roof!!
Solar cells are down to under $3 per watt now.  230 watt panel for about $500.  Fantastic!

Many cars of the past got better gas mileage than the cars of today, just look at the old car ads from the 1970's and early 1980's in "Time" & "NewsWeek" mags. The Honda Civic got something like 45 mpg, the Ford Pinto got 38mpg or some such number. It seems all the smog control devices on the new vehicles choke off fuel economy. The old VW's and the VW Rabbit got super fuel mileage, The diesel models even did better- The big cars of the 1970's were poor on fuel though.

Quote from: Red Arrow on March 25, 2010, 09:14:31 PM
I remember a guy (electronics tech, I hate to say) from my Navy days.  He wanted to put an electric motor and battery set in a car as a pure electric.  He was then going to put a generator on the propulsion motor to recharge the propulsion batteries as he drove the car.  I'm not sure I convinced him that his plan was essentially perpetual motion.

Yeah there is always alot of talk about that, another spin off was having a electric car with generators on all 4 wheels and as the car drove down the highway  the spinning 4 generators connected to the tires  would re-charge the batteries and run the car as it went. The "Perpetual motion theory" thing says it cannot be done. ???

Quote from: sauerkraut on March 27, 2010, 09:35:28 AM
Yeah there is always alot of talk about that, another spin off was having a electric car with generators on all 4 wheels and as the car drove down the highway  the spinning 4 generators connected to the tires  would re-charge the batteries and run the car as it went. The "Perpetual motion theory" thing says it cannot be done. ???

tick, tock.....tick, tock.

MMmm, car bumpers are delicious.

There has been a LOT of BS floating around about the old (60's) VW Beetle.  It never got anywhere near 30 mpg.  The Rabbit diesel consistently got 45 to 50, though.  (I owned two Beetles, family member owned one and couple of friends each owned one, so I know what they got.)

Other than that, they were a wonderful little piece of crap car.  Am looking for one now.  60's model.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 28, 2010, 12:41:54 PM
There has been a LOT of BS floating around about the old (60's) VW Beetle.  It never got anywhere near 30 mpg.  The Rabbit diesel consistently got 45 to 50, though.  (I owned two Beetles, family member owned one and couple of friends each owned one, so I know what they got.)

Other than that, they were a wonderful little piece of crap car.  Am looking for one now.  60's model.

I thought the old 60's VW did better than that, but what the heck gasoline was only 30 cents a gallon back then- I was surprised of the gas mileage other small cars got from mag. ads in the 1970's. The Ford Pinto did very well as did the Vega with a 4 cylinder banger. I bet if you could build a heap with a 3 or 4 cylinder 2 cycle engine with no emission controls  fuel mileage would be well over 50 per gallon. A 3 cylinder two cycle engine should have about as much power as a 6 cylinder four cycle engine since with the two cycle every other stroke is a power stroke. I wish the USA would get more diesels vehicles on the road like what they have in Europe. I'd like to see a half ton pick-up truck with a diesel

That video Patric posted about the dogs and patrol car is something else. The dogs did alot of damage to the car and it seems the cop did not know what to do. :-X

I liked the Super Beetle (1972ish) but never cared for the original suspension on the regular Beetle.  I went on trip with some college friends in a regular Beetle. I rode in the back seat.  The driver wasn't crazy or anything stupid but I just didn't care for the way the car appeared to handle. Other than that, if you kept the valves adjusted, they were a pretty reliable car.

As an example of German engineering, they were pretty mediocre, but they were designed for a particular purpose - to be the Model T of Germany.  I got from 21 to 25 in mine.  That was about average for everyone I knew personally.

Lot's of maintenance, lots of compromises (suspension, heating, and air conditioning), but they are just too cool not to have one.  I love them.  That's why I am looking.


Every single one of the things required for pollution is also required for better mileage from fuel to electronic controls to spark plugs.  This is probably the "best" trade-off in the whole field.  You really would not want to go back.

Car without emissions would be a catastrophe due to several engineering reasons.  The first thing that would happen would be to cheapen everything from coils to valves to pistons to carburetors.  One of the big things that makes cars go 100,000 miles between tune ups is the unleaded gas.  If you have that, then must have either much more MTBE or much heavier blocks/pistons for huge pressures (25:1 or so - like a diesel) instead of lower pressures today.  That extra weight takes care of any extra gas mileage.  Every bit of the engine design is a trade off.  Plus, if I remember right, the higher combustion temperatures required for the higher pressure does some 'not so good' things for combustion by products (don't hold me to that...need an automotive combustion engineer).

Two cycle would weigh less, but then you would have to rebuild the thing every 30,000 miles (much higher RPM's for same horse/torque, much more wear).  "Course, it would cost less to rebuild, but the oil/filter would be  very funky and oil mixed with gas is horribly inefficient for lubrication as well as being a mess for pollution control, making wear worse on the piston and other moving parts.  LOTS of trade-offs.

After all the trade-offs, the car (say a 350 cu/in 1971 Chevy Impala) would probably last much shorter time than the 4 cycle and would probably end up costing noticeably more in maintenance during that time.  Might only be about the same or just a little less to rebuild.  Plus it would make the world a much more polluted place.

Half ton with diesel sounds good, but there is a trade-off (as always).  To keep people from exceeding the capacity of the chassis, the engine would have to be "smaller".  That would be ok, but I think many would be tempted to overload and do dangerous things.  Diesel is great, especially with the new generation of electronic controls they are getting.  The big trucks are getting an extra hassle built in for pollution control - some require an additive tank that must be kept up.  Don't really understand it all yet, but sounds like a kind of a pain.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 28, 2010, 09:35:35 PM
Plus, if I remember right, the higher combustion temperatures required for the higher pressure does some 'not so good' things for combustion by products (don't hold me to that...need an automotive combustion engineer).

I believe it contributed to the NOx but I'm not sure.

Geeesh- if the tiny VW only got only 21 MPG your better off in a full size pick-up truck you have more room and get nearly the same mileage, at least in the new ones you do.

Quote from: sauerkraut on March 30, 2010, 09:51:43 AM
Geeesh- if the tiny VW only got only 21 MPG your better off in a full size pick-up truck you have more room and get nearly the same mileage, at least in the new ones you do.

Please find me a truck that is one of the original Beetle's contemporaries that gets 21 miles to the gallon.

Today's pickups are better.  Not much, though.
'67 Ford w/ 390 and auto - about 10 mpg.  But you could pull some weight.  Still not as much as my diesel, though.  At 12 to 13 loaded.  21 mpg with no load.

21 for the VW was great for the time.  '67 Olds with 455cu. in. Rocket got 7.  You could literally hear the sucking sound at the carburetor when you stood on it.  But it was smmmoooooottthhhhhhh!

By 1970, the mileage was slightly up - 12-14 for Olds 350 w/ auto (Cutlass).

Rabbit diesel was the shining star - still is.  45 to 50 was incredible.  Still is.

Quote from: nathanm on March 30, 2010, 01:52:45 PM
Please find me a truck that is one of the original Beetle's contemporaries that gets 21 miles to the gallon.

The new trucks have mileage stickers on the window that say 20 miles per gallon, or in that neighborhood, I don't know what the milegage of the 1960s pick up trucks was.

65, 66 Chevy 350 w/auto - 10 to 12 mpg.
66 Ford 390 - about 10, no load.  6 with load
73 Ford 351 Windsor w/auto - 12mpg
86 Ford 351Windsor w/auto 14mpg
86 Ford diesel 6speed manual - 14mpg with a heavy load  17 without
99 Dodge diesel 21 without, 14 with load

Some samples

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 05, 2010, 09:21:59 PM
65, 66 Chevy 350 w/auto - 10 to 12 mpg.
66 Ford 390 - about 10, no load.  6 with load
73 Ford 351 Windsor w/auto - 12mpg
86 Ford 351Windsor w/auto 14mpg
86 Ford diesel 6speed manual - 14mpg with a heavy load  17 without
99 Dodge diesel 21 without, 14 with load

Some samples

Very Grim numbers but I guess with gasoline at 25 cents a gallon it did not matter.

On the subject of car bumpers, I remember a 1973 article in Popular Science Mag. called "Those New '73 bumpers... first the good news" The problem with the first year of the bumpers was they had no standard bumper height limit, the Plymouth Sebring front bumpers overrode many other bumpers and the '73 Chrysler Newport rear bumpers were up too high so that other 5mph bumpers slid right under it. It was latter that they required all bumpers be the same height, and then latter on they required the bumpers to take a corner impact at 5mph too, the first year of the bumpers only required a 5mph hit into a wall square on. They did prevent alot of damage in accidents though.

Quote from: sauerkraut on April 06, 2010, 10:48:36 AM
Very Grim numbers but I guess with gasoline at 25 cents a gallon it did not matter.

I don't remember seeing any $.25/gal gas after the early 70s.

1968 there were still "gas wars" where stations dropped the price to try to get volume.
Found one in Missouri where bought for 12.9 cents per gallon.  Pretty wild.

Then in about 73 it started up.  By 78, it was 55 cents and rising.

If we had started THEN we would BE energy independent!