Automotive Evolution

 

On one of the (way too) many social-media sites, I recently came across a “test your knowledge” type of post which showed 2 semi-matching GM keys, asking the purpose of the two separate keys. Of course, those of us driving in the 70’s (and often driving older cars at that time) would immediately know that ignition switches, doors, trunks and glove boxes may or may not have shared keys, and if shared, often in different combinations per manufacturer. Such idiosyncrasies were commonplace in auto-tech at one time, in this specific case likely having roots back to the 1920’s, when autos first got enclosed cabins.

But this discussion got me thinking about various automotive design practices which we used to take for granted but have now gone the way of passbook savings accounts and Falstaff beer. This in turn made me ponder the merit of the technologies which replaced these practices and ultimately conclude that not all progress serves us well. In fact, some modern design trends may prove detrimental to automotive or societal evolutionary needs.

For an anecdotal priming of the pump, consider cellphones. Back in (the barely post-Cambrian era of) the 1960’s and 70’s, people didn’t have 24/7 access to phones, and no such thing as a cellphone existed (yes Gertrude, this is fact). When you worked, unless you had an outward-facing reception, sales, customer service or executive desk job, you likely never even used a phone throughout your workday (except maybe during breaks). If you had to make personal calls, they were usually made in the evening on your personal landline. Then enter cell phones, stage left. As soon as we could take our conversations with us, we needed to be in constant contact with family, friends and workplace. Nothing really  changed except our expectation because we had knowledge of the new technology. In this case our culture adapted to technology, not the other way around. Was this good? Like everything in life, it has good and bad attributes. You never really know the full collateral impact of any technology until it is adopted.

Automotive case in point, consider the elimination of wing-windows and footwell ventilation. Wing-windows (the little swing-out windowettes at the front of door side-glasses) lasted through the mid-1990’s on some consumer vehicles, notably pickup trucks, though footwell ventilators seemed to disappear much earlier (and some younger readers are scratching their heads wondering what those are right now; little outside air-vents that dumped air directly into the driver and passenger footwells). In my voluminous book of past personal vehicles, I last recall seeing footwell ventilation sometime in the early 1980’s, and then on my early-mid 1960’s trucks. Both means of ventilation originated from an earlier period of auto-tech, way back before an A/C evaporator coil was a gleam in the auto-designer’s eye.

While many of us now drive around in full cocoon-mode, thanks to our 3-ton, climate-controlled sensory-deprivation tanks, that wasn’t always the case, and back then we knew what was going on around us. Rolled-up car windows (with sound systems cranked) will quickly dull your senses to the world outside;  the ambulance approaching an intersection with sirens blaring, the train approaching an unregulated grade-crossing, or even the professional beggar sitting at the same intersection, at the same time of day/every day, all fade to the background without notice (I’ll let you determine the value of that last loss).

Situational awareness took a major nosedive once the windows rolled up, but so did economy. Admittedly, perception of outdoor temperature is relative, none the less if it isn’t “shoot-me-now” hot outside, I still choose to commute with windows down and A/C off in warm weather. This is because running with windows up and A/C on in warm weather turns my beloved 33 MPG/City car (a Honda Fit) into a 27-28 MPG/City car. At $1.89/gal that wasn’t such a great loss, but at $4.29/gal it certainly is! Simply, maximizing airflow through the car allows you to operate it later into the summer without the A/C running, just as our automotive forefathers did for the first 40-50 years.

Another economy killer; abandoning vertical glass. The continual trend towards nearly horizontal windshields and heavily tilted side glass is another design initiative which may burn more fuel and cause more emissions that it reduces for many of us. As a wind-tunnel adaptation it makes perfect sense. Manufacturers are continually pushed to do better with economy, CAFE standards rewarding any gains, no matter how meager. However average economy rewards gains at highway speed, as that disproportionately takes the average economy up (If you burn 10% less fuel at 70MPH, it is comparable to over double that reduction at 30MPH, because you are covering over twice the distance at 70). 

Also consider sunshine and heavy weather. That stylish expanse of nearly horizontal front glass will turn your car into a restaurant grade food-warmer in full sunlight. Sunlight radiation will heat the cabin very (very) quickly, and the more horizontal the glass, the more sunlight you will catch. So you fire up your A/C at anything over 60 degrees to compensate, and that burns extra fuel.  And what about the hail associated with heavy weather? Just like the sun’s rays, a hailstone will transfer more energy (and crack more glass) the closer its angle of impact is to a right angle (the “angle of incidence” from high-school geometry). Hailstones are usually wind-deflected from a vertical freefall, so the rakish windshields often make a perfect target to maximize damage. IE: this trend towards salt-flats worthy glass-slant may help fuel economy at freeway speeds but is a nemesis to cabin heat and will incur more breakage, and even cost more when it does break. 

And what of the always tightening gauntlet of NHTSA required safety features:

While no one wants to hear of someone bleeding-out in a car that was crushed in a collision or highway rollover, all the safety stuff to mitigate that possibility weights quite a bit. Side impact door girders, front and side-fire airbags, collision avoidance active braking systems; all of this technology comes with a weight penalty. 

In 1967 a ½ ton, long-bed Ford pickup weighed in at about 3,560Lbs empty, and got 16-18 MPG on the highway (with the 300 inch six, or 4.9L in modern-speak). Today the base Ford ½ ton has a 5.0 liter engine, weighs-in at about 4,400Lbs, and gets about 21 MPG on the highway (perfect world number). Remember, more weight takes more power to move, which in turn consumes more fuel. Engine technology (and fuel systems) has improved exponentially since the 1960’s, which is very good. But without those modern improvements, the mentioned weight penalty in 2026 would make that 21 MPG truck a 13 MPG truck. 

Conversely, put that modern engine in the lighter 1967 Ford and it would likely be pulling down 25-27MPG on the highway (and it would be wicked-fast to boot!). That modern weight penalty also carries with it more driveline, tire and brake wear. A kind of lose/lose scenario for efficiency; in all cases, a lighter vehicle is more economical to operate than a similarly situated heavier vehicle. Another oddity in my portfolio of prior rides happened to be a 1952 Buick with a Straight-Eight and a 3-speed manual. Buick’s smallest car then (a Special), but a big car by anyone’s reckoning (121.5” wheelbase), it really needed its own zip code. But in spite of the significant girth, it only weighed about 3,650 pounds (try that now!) and moved around just fine on a little 263 cu/inch (sorry, 4.3 liter) engine, squeezing 17-19 MPG out of a pre-war design Stromberg carburetor in the process. 

And at this point it would likely be good to point out that if the motoring public would put their cellphones down and pay attention to their driving, much of this safety stuff wouldn’t have been needed in the first place. In effect, we have forced our legislature to act on our behalf because we have refused to moderate our own behavior.

So, you need to straighten up folks, and while you’re at it… Get off my lawn!