My last diary was about roads & the Interstate highway system, so it seemed sorta logical to keep the line of thought going & do something on the things that roll around on the billions of dollars of pavement; cars. However, it won't be quite as simple as discussing manual transmissions.
A little while back, MSN had an article which wonders if the stick shift is headed the way of 8-track & VHS? According to J.D. Power and Associates, about 8% of cars sold today have a manual transmission, compared to more than a third of automobiles sold in 1980. So if tomorrow's generation of drivers learn how to "heel-and-toe", their parents/Driver's Ed will probably have to go above & beyond to teach it.
Although I wouldn't classify an automatic transmission this way, I thought the article was interesting when taken in the context of "redundant" technologies used in automobiles & the idea of "bloatware."
But first, a little Auto news. The automotive sales numbers for July 2009 were released today. A couple things stand out. One, people seem to like Subaru Imprezas. And two, Ford was the only automotive company to post a sales increase (2%) when compared to July 2008. Four of Ford's five brands posted positive numbers (only Lincoln was down, -24%). The "Cash for Clunkers" program is credited with helping this sales boost. And while a lot of those numbers in red look bad, believe it or not, for many of those brands the numbers are actually better than what was expected.
Has the tide turned? From Autoblog:
This is the first month in a LONG time that more than two or three brands have earned green cells in our chart below, so perhaps it is a signal that Cash for Clunkers is working and/or shoppers are slowly returning to showrooms.
For most of the cars sold last month, the standard automatic transmission & continuously variable transmissions (CVT) have largely supplanted the use of a manual transmission. And with the advent of "Manumatics" (an automatic transmission that allows the driver to manually shift gears without the need of a clutch), might even high performance vehicles eventually lose the manual transmission?
Maybe.....
Porsche is one carmaker that has kept the faith. The sports car-centric brand sells a higher percentage of sticks than any other, from 60 to 65 percent on all its sports cars. Yet even Porsche officials say that automated gearboxes are a key to maintaining the brand’s appeal among new generations. "So many young people never learn how to drive a stick, unless a parent makes a point of teaching them," said spokesman Tony Fouladpour.
As such, the German automaker expects its new PDK dual-clutch automatic to be the company's most popular automatic ever. "That's the progression even pure sports cars have taken," says Porsche spokesman Dave Engelman. As a result, Porsche anticipates that 70 to 80 percent of 911 owners will opt for the auto box, especially in the early going.
These systems are dramatically defying the old arguments for a manual transmission. For instance, it's widely believed that manuals are more fuel-efficient than automatics. Sorry, that's no longer true. The latest Porsche is one of several cars that's more economical with the automatic: 19/27 mpg in city/highway driving, compared to 18/25 mpg with the stick. Another myth is that manuals accelerate faster. Wrong again. The Porsche and other models are faster with computer-controlled trannies. These automatics shift so quickly that no human being, not even the world's best drivers in Formula 1, can match their abilities.
In the history of the car, an automatic transmission is an amazing technical achievement (especially from the point of view of those often stuck in a lot of traffic). However, what about those things that complicate the simple?
A few days ago, I linked to Jalopnik's piece titled "Ten Things Your Kids Will Never Experience In A New Car" in a comment for Overnight News Digest. One of their examples is the widow crank, which has been replaced by what was once the luxurious option of "power windows" & locks. There are a few models that still offer window cranks in stripped down iterations of the vehicle, but you'll probably have a hard time finding one on a dealer lot.
Nearly everyone reading this post probably grew up with a car featuring crank windows. They're cheap, they're reliable, they're light weight and they make you exercise to get at that sweet, sweet fresh air. All reasons they're being naturally selected out of the automotive gene pool. It doesn't help that even on the most beautiful days, everyone stays bottled up with their air conditioning humming.
Jalopnik followed up this list with two other pieces that wondered about whether some of the technology in cars is now redundant, especially for those who want a "nice basic car." In general, cars are better made today than they were 20 or 30 years ago (it's been a while since I've seen someone have to "push start" a car). But if you were to take off all the standard features that were once optional, and wanted the equivalent of the stripped down new car one could find in the '70s or '80s (a vehicle with a manual transmission, window cranks, actually using a key to unlock doors, and God forbid no air conditioning), could you end up with vehicles that sell for below $10,000?
Not necessarily... actually, probably not. The manufacturing process has changed from what it was in the 1970s & '80s. Today, most of the parts come from China, to the point it's cheaper for the manufacturers to load every car with power windows & locks, than have two options installed on an assembly line. In fact, the parts for power windows (bought in bulk) are cheaper than the assembly for a window crank.
From Speed:Sport:Life:
The way Gran Torinos, and all other American cars, were made in 1973 was pretty simple. You pushed ‘em down the line and you added equipment. The men who built the cars earned a solid "living wage" doing so, and all of the equipment they added, with the occasional minor exception, was also made in America by men earning a living wage... Why did power windows cost more than roll-up windows in 1973? It’s easy to understand; it took a man, or a team of men, earning the aforementioned living wage, longer to build, assemble, and install power window components.
In 2009, the whole deal is "subbed out" to a supplier who produces snap-in power window assemblies. It’s usually cheaper to get 100,000 power window assemblies than it is to get 50,000 roll-up assemblies and 50,000 power assemblies, plus you don’t have to train the $12/hour temps who (don’t tell anyone!) actually do a lot of "low-skill" jobs on American assembly lines how to install two different kinds of window assemblies. The door can be made simpler because it doesn’t have to accommodate two different kinds of controls, which leads to more volume discounts, and so on... There was a time when it took days for a car to travel from one end of the massive River Rouge plant to the other; today it takes Ford thirteen hours to build a Fiesta. There are hundreds of assembly steps required to build that Fiesta, so you can be assured that each one has been massaged into near-perfection. If it takes an extra thirty seconds to determine which radio should go into a slot, it might be cheaper to give everybody the "better" radio and standardize production, particularly when the "better" radio barely costs any more than the "regular" one. These kinds of decisions are made all the way up and down the line, with the end result being that no car sold in this country today comes with a plain AM radio. What’s the point? Your Chinese radio manufacturer couldn’t save you more than a dollar or two, perhaps less, by pulling the FM functionality out of the radio, and your assembly time might go up as a result. And just like that, the AM radio is gone, as dead as the non-prismatic rearview mirror or the fixed-back bench seat.
However, that's not the entire story. Cars, like a lot of products in various sectors, have a tendency to suffer from what in computer software parlance is called "bloatware" (AKA feature creep) with each successive iteration. The idea of bloatware is that products do not get smaller or more efficient year over year, but usually expand to be "bigger & better" until they reach a point they're too bloated to be useful. The software also becomes a vehicle to launch other unnecessary programs, which will be packaged into it. People then find a new "small" product that efficiently does what the bloated one once did, and the cycle begins again.
- Symantec's Norton Antivirus was once a relatively small & efficient program, but the newest versions of it have so many features that many complain it's a ridiculous "memory hog."
- With each new version of iTunes, Apple adds another feature they feel needs to be part of a computer's startup (iTunes helper, Bonjour, Apple mobile device service, etc.).
- The process of "bloat" has some similarities to what can happen to legislation in Congress. A congressman or senator proposes a bill that is popular & a good idea. By the time his or her bill works its way through the various committees & amendments, it could have various earmarks for things that have nothing to do with the problem the bill was meant to address.
With cars, a model line tends to get bigger, add engine size & horsepower, and add more luxury features as time progresses. The more stuff that comes standard is also more stuff that can break & need service once the warranty is over. Last year,
Edmunds noted bloat with the Honda Accord.
The day an automaker redesigns a midsize family sedan and declares it to be, "Less roomy, less powerful and less luxurious!" is the day that I expect to read a Rolling Stone "Top 50 Albums Of All Time" story and find "Frampton Comes Alive!" in the top 10... The Accord has a 110.2-inch wheelbase, a 194.1-inch length and a 72.7-inch width. People who remember previous Accords as being "right-sized" cars might find these numbers to be uncomfortably close to the Avalon's, which check in at 111, 197.6 and 72.8, respectively.
Thankfully, the new Accord still drives like an Accord, albeit a bigger one. The steering, handling and power are all pleasing. And the increase in size has made the interior even roomier. No question, it's another home run from Honda. But if it gets any bigger or heavier on the next redesign, the Accord might as well be Honda's Avalon, with the Civic taking up the midsize spot and the Fit being the "old Civic."
I can not think of a new car that has gotten smaller & cheaper from its previous year's predecessor. What kind of "redundant" technologies get added to cars as they bloat? How about electrically adjustable seats? If you drop some change between the seats, consider it lost forever.
The electric motors take up space, meaning seats sit higher than they need to, and add weight and complication. Manual seats are just as quick to adjust, offer a larger range of adjustment because there's no space occupied by motors, weigh less and are less likely to break.
I'm still somewhat fascinated by the popularity of car GPS navigation systems. I love technology & yes I thought it was cool when I first saw one, but what does it say that people would rather spend almost two to three hundred dollars for a machine that leads them around like a dog on a leash, than pay a buck for a map at a gas station, learn how to read the damn thing, and develop a bloody sense of direction? Hell, you don't even have to pay for a map anymore. People can just download the directions from Google Maps or MapQuest.