mmarshall

I've been driving and checking out cars since the 1960's, and I sometimes get asked what I think are the best automotive improvements in my lifetime. In fact, just this afternoon, I was at a nice traditional classic-car show with a couple of my friends, and caused me to ponder the question myself a little.

Of course, compared to the cars I grew up with, there are some things that I DON'T like about today's cars...the smaller sizes, firmer seats, generally firmer rides (I tend to like size and cushy-comfort), overly-plastic interiors/trim, lack of real spare tires, etc..... But, in general, cars today are much-improved, and, except for the cushier-rides, interior space, and (some) better interior materials of yesteryear, I'm not sure I'd want to go back to
the cars of my youth.

So, in general, cars today, as just stated, are much-improved. There have been, of course, hundereds (even thousands) of automotive improvements over the decades since I started driving, and I couldn't possibly mention every one here in just one thread. But, if I had to pick ten of the most significant and most important car-design improvements over the years of my lifetime, this would be it. These, to me, have done more than any others to make car ownership and driving a better, safer, and more-pleasing experience. Of the ten, I will list them in order of what I consider the least-important (IMO) to the most-important.


(You readers, of course, are free to agree or disagree with all or part of this list, or to suggest some auto-industry advances which you feel are more important than the ones I listed). But I myself feel very strongly about these Top Ten.



10. Dent-resistant Body Panels

Originally made famous by the fiberglass Corvettes that dawned in 1953, a few other manufacturers and cars, such as the ill-fated 1984 Pontiac Fiero, tried plastic or fiberglass body-panels, with mixed results. But, of course, it was up to GM's Saturn division, in the 1990s, to really perfect them. The Saturn thermoplastic body panels soon became one of the company's symbols of success.....along with better-than-average reliability and customer-friendly sales/service practices. These panels had an uncanny ability to ward off dents/dings, and corrosion.....a common display at auto shows was Saturn reps beating the sides of the cars with clubs and bats, with no body-damage. Saturn's paint (on the plastic panels) was of a special water-borne type that flexed along with the panels to minimize chipping/cracking/damage when the panels flexed. The paint could be scratched, of course, but it was rare to see any real damage to Saturn body-panels unless the vehicle had been in a significant accident. There were larger-than-average gaps between the panels in assembly (some critics, mistakenly, took this as a sign of sloppiness and poor quality-control), but those gaps were there for a reason...the plastic expanded in the heat, and the gaps were there to allow the doors to open and shut correctly without binding.

It was a great idea, and GM, IMO, made two big errors....first, converting the plastic-bodied Saturns to conventional steel-bodied GM/Opel clones after 2000, and, second, shutting down the Saturn division altogether. Saturn, as it was in the 1990's, should have been allowed to keep on doing the cars (and the customer-service) it did best, and not grossly mismanaged by GM leadership the way it was. Shame, GM. And some plastic body-parts, of course, live on, such as the fenders of the current VW Beetle.



9. Permanantly-Lubed Chassis

A (former) regular feature of engine-oil-changes was the added-duty of having to take a grease-gun and shoot grease into the nipple-joints of steering/suspension parts in the chassis....the oil-change/grease-job usually went together. You put the car up on a lift (or ramps) and crawled underneath. It was always, to some extent, guesswork....you watched the boot-covers expand as the grease was pumped in, and tried to gauge just the right amount. Too little grease, and the joints would run dry and wear too quickly.....too much grease, and the boot/covers would pop out and/or be damaged. Some older upmarket cars, like Rolls-Royce, Bentley, and Cadillac, had a foot-operated pedal inside where the driver could automatically shoot a pre-determined amount of grease into the fittings.....but, due to the expense/complexity of the design, it was obviously not practical for most cars.

Fortunately, that all went out the window with permantly-lubed fittings on modern steering/suspension parts...they are installed that way at the factory, and designed to last the life of the car. In most cases, they do....although some FWD and AWD cars need CV-boots occasionally replaced after several years.



8. Radial Tires.

Tires, in the early 1900s, progressed from solid-rubber (as on horse-carriages) to inner-tubes to bias-ply (where they remained for many years) to the radial-design first perfected by the French Michelin company (even today, Michelin has a reputation for good tire-construction). Radial tires differ from bias-ply in that the tires' cords run radially across the diameter of the tire, rather than in a circle around the tire's diameter like with bias-ply. Many radials, of course, are strengthened with nylon or steel cords inside. Radial tires, in general, handle better than bias-ply because the sidewalls can flex while cornering, keeping more of the tire's contact-patch in solid contact with the pavement. Modern radials, in general, also last much longer than older bias-ply tires, but other factors (such as rubber-compounds) are also in play there, not just the type of tire-construction.

Radials, though, to be honest, do have two faults compared to older bias-ply tires. First, if you get damage or a puncture anywhere in the tires's sidewall (above the tread grooves) the tire usually has to be replaced. That is because the tendence of the radial's sidewall to flex can undo the tire-plug or repair. Second, a bias-ply tire usually gives some warning when it is about to reach its cornering limit....radials, because the tire's contact-patch stays planted more firmly, often hang on to the last second and then let go all (or almost all)at once.

But, in general, the radial tire is considered a significant advance over the bias-ply. I agree.



7. Clearcoat Paint.

Those of you with older cars, who can remember the delights of having the top layer of the car's paint (especially in the darker colors) come off and stain both your hand and the polishing-rag you were using will, like me, certainly appreciate the benefits of modern clearcoat paint. That's becasuse, decades ago, body-panels were simply given a layer or two of primer, a couple of coats of paint on top, and that was it...no real attempt to prevent long-body-rust, chrome-pitting or other finish-deterioration. Luxury-cars sometimes got a few more paint-coats, but the top later of paint, unless kept continually waxed, was usually at the mercy of the elements. Generally, the type of paint used was either enamel or acryllic-lacquer. In the 1960s, the enamel paint-jobs on Ford and Chrysler products usually were glossier than acrylic lacquer, but had a tendency to chip, especially in parking-lot door-dings. The acrylic-lacquer paint on GM and AMC (American Motors) cars didn't chip as easily, generally didn't shine as much, and was notorious for early deterioration...I can remember some new GM cars in the 1960s showing signs of paint-oxidation as early as eight months to one-year after delivery. In addition, wax jobs, using the typically abrasive one-step wax-cleaners of the period, almost always turned into a mess on your hands and the cloth as the mild-abrasives in the wax-cleaner took off the very top-layer of oxidized paint, leaving a fresher, shinier layer underneath...that, in effect, is how they worked. And, red and silver paint of almost any type of paint faded/oxidized quickly because of the microscopic particles of iron in it (which helped give it its color) coming into contact with oxygen in the air. The purple Chrysler In-Violet/Plum-Crazy paint of muscle-car fame also oxidized very quickly, even though it was of the enamel-type...it was apparantly something in the purple-pigment.

(I used to get into arguments with my brother about this with his French Renault...the light-green acrylic lacquer paint on it, like on GM/AMC cars of the period, had a tendency to fade and oxidize, and he wouldn't use even mildly-abrasive wax-cleaners because the Owners'Manual didn't recommend it. I told him that pure wax alone wasn't going to do the job....and finally proved it by going out and demonstrating it myself. I showed him that the Owners' manual, in that one specific area, was full of crap, and that you HAD to use at least some kind of abrasive-cleaner to take out the oxidation. The wax-cleaners of the era generally did a good job, but not as good as the SCRATCH-OUT liquid I use today (and highly recommend).


Anyhow, modern clearcoat paint-jobs have all but eliminated the annual mess-on-the-hands/cloth routines associated with wax-jobs and paint-care. Not only that, but the body panels themselves today, using galvanized steel, aluminum, modern alloys, thermo-plastics (like the Saturns I mentioned above), and electro-coated/plating for protection are far more resistant to corrosion than years ago, even on salt-coated winter roads....that is one reason why you see the 5-6 year/100,000-mile-and-up rust-through warranties today. I don't remember exactly what car or what company was the first to mass-produce cars with clearcoat paint, but I remember Ford, I think sometime in the late 1980's, being the first company to menton it in their advertising. The clearcoat process works by adding one or more clear, transparent-paint layers (most cars have two) on top of the body-color layers for durability and fade-resistance. And it DOES work....not only do today's paint jobs stay shiny and new-looking MUCH longer than decades ago, but, of course, no more paint-color mess on your hands or the rag when you DO go out and wax. In my experience among reviewing mass-produced cars, Lexus, Toyota, Audi, and Acura generally do the best clearcoat-paint jobs today, but a number of other makes, especially Subaru, GM, and Chrysler, are much better in this area than they were even a few years ago.



6. Disc Brakes/Electronic Brake sensors

Decades ago, there was a saying in the auto-press that if it wasn’t for the British, American cars wouldn’t have decent brakes at all……..and, unfortunately, there is at least some truth to that. Just as the Japanese (later) pioneered and perfected quality-control on the assembly-line, British racing cars used and perfected disc brakes in the 1940s and 50s…roughly one to two decades before Detroit made them standard or offered them as options. There were some earler attempts to use discs on American designs, like the advanced but ill-fated Tucker Torpedo of 1948, 50’s-vintage Corvettes, and early-60’s Ford and Studebaker products. But, in general, American manufacturers did not adopt them until public pressure (and publications like Ralph
Nader’s Unsafe at any Speed) forced some safety updates.

That’s not to say, however, that drum brakes did not have some advantages…..or that disc brakes were an all-out 100% improvement with no problems. Disc-brake rotors, especially without ventilation-holes, have an often-seen tendency to warp and get out-of-round with continued heat-build-up, causing annoying pulses/vibrations in the brake-pedal that can also put side-stresses on wheel-bearings and hubs. Disc rotors also (usually) don’t make as good a parking-brake as drums do, because it takes a lot more hand/foot pressure on the parking-brake cable to set them than with drums. Porsche (and a few other ultra-high-performance cars) have come up with an effective but costly solution to the warpage-problem…ceramic rotors, widely used today in racing, which can take temperatures of several thousand degrees (enough to turn steel rotors red-hot) without warping.

Disc-brake-pads, in general, though (depending on amount of use, weight of the vehicle, and driving habits), last longer than drum/shoe-linings….on the cars I grew up with, especially the lousy-drum-brake Chrysler products, 15-20K miles from linings was about average. Today, 40-50K miles is about average for most city/suburban driving......longer than that for rural and freeway use. Drum brakes, again especially on the older Chrysler products, were notorious for fade with heavy use…..I learned the art of mountain driving very cautiously in the Appalachians of MD / VA / WV / PA. Drums also lose much of their effectiveness when wet, and have to dry off with heat/friction to get their efficiency back…..Discs keep much more of their effectiveness, even when wet, because it is very difficult for water to get between the pads and rotor-contact points, even when driving through standing-water on the road.

Last, from the advent of disc-brakes, and the later electronic sensors used on them that were pioneered in the late 1980s by Mercedes, Volvo, BMW, and Cadillac, came a number of other safety-advances as well, such as anti-lock brakes, traction-control, VSC (vehicle-stability systems), and anti-roll VSC systems, all of which use electronic sensors that can pump one or more brakes in rapid-succession.

So, yes, thank you, Brits (and Preston Tucker).........your pioneering work is much-appreciated.


5. Windshield Washers.

I can remember, decades ago, in my old 60's-vintage Plymouth Barracuda without windshield-washers (just 2-speed electric wipers), driving across the Pennsylvania Turnpike to my Aunt's house in Kent, Ohio. It was January.....and raining when I left the D.C. area, but that turned to snow and icy roads as I got further north and west. After surviving the ice and almost wiping out coming into Breezewood, PA (that's a hairy story in itself, and I won't go into it here), the Turnpike had been salted/wet and it had quit raining/snowing...an absolutely horrible combination for keeping the windshield clean. When you get a wet road (particularly with salt) and it's NOT raining to keep some moisture on the windshield windshield so the wipers can clear for you, it can be a real mess......in this case, it was just horrible. Temperature at or below freezing, white salt-film being kicked up by vehicle-tires in front of you and constantly forming on the windshield......windshield-washers would have been a Godsend under those circumstances, but my car didn't have them. This seems almost embarassing to say in this age of automotive creature-comforts, but, on that trip, WHILE DRIVING, in order to see the road at all in front of me, I had to open the drivers' window, hold the steering wheel with my right hand, and, with my left hand, reach out around the A-Pillar with a damp cloth (fortunately, it was a fairly small car by 60s-standards), and wipe the salt-film off, in the freezing-gale, of just enough of the left-corner of the windshield that I could physically see where I was going.....it was almost as bad as controlling an airplane on instuments, which I learned a couple of decades later. When possible, I stopped at the Turnpike's gas-stations whenever possible and used the windshield-squeegie.....but, in that part of PA, Turnpike exits and rest-areas may not be for every 20-30 miles. Well, with luck, the Good Lord's help, some driving-skills, and (yes) a VERY COLD left-hand, I finally reached Ohio and saw my relatives. I resolved, there, that I would never have another car without windshield-washers, or, if I did, that I would never drive under those circumstances again if I could help it. The rest, of course, is history.

Of course, windshield washers, although they are a major help, aren't necesarily the magic-wand answer to all bad-weather/wet-roads, either. Unless you have separate headlight-washers (which, like many safety-features, I think, were pioneered by Volvo and Mercedes), they won't keep your headlights clean for good night-vision. And, though the typical blue washer-liquid sold in many stores is advertised as washer "anti-freeze", in fact, it isn't. It often DOES freeze when it gets much below 32 degrees, so the engine has to warm up or already be hot for the underhood heat to thaw out the system's feeder-lines. Some upmarket cars have a special heater for the washer pump/fluid that allows quick-use of the system in cold weather, but less-expensive cars usually just have the older washer-system. Even the simpler washer-system, though, is better than nothing.



4. Rack-and-Pinion Steering

A major driving-advance, especially for those who don't spend most of their time on arrow-straight Interstates and do some cornering, has been the development of rack-and-pinion steering, originally pioneered on racing cars decades ago. Up to then, most vehicles used the older (and in some ways, more durable) recirculating-ball system....and some heavier, full-size trucks and truck-based SUVs still use it today. Mercedes and BMW used recirculating-ball some of their larger V8 and V12 cars until very recently. But most, if not virtually all, of the auto industry, and at least some of the light-truck industry, today, has converted to the more-precise rack-and-pinion system, even if the steering-racks are sometimes less-durable than
recirculating-ball.

And there's a reason for that conversion. Recirculating-ball systems could handle more front-end vehicle-weight, but, especially with manual non-power systems without hydraulic or electric-assistance, tended to develop free-play across the center of the steering-wheel as they aged. I've driven some older recirculating-ball systems that had as much as 3 or 4 inches of free-play...you could shake the wheel back and forth and still not turn the front-wheels one bit. So, obviously, even with some sportier, reduced-ratio steering gears that still meant less-than-ideal response. On wide, straight Interstates without crosswinds, that isn't much of a factor, but take a narrow, two-lane, snake-winding road like U.S. 50 across the West Virginia mountains or U.S. 211 up and down Thornton Gap to Virginia's Skyline Drive, or even some straight Interstates with crosswinds constantly tossing you around, and you've got some steering-work to do to keep your car in its lane.

Rack-and-pinion steering eliminates that constant, annoying free-play across the center of the steering-wheel associated with recirculating-ball systems, and makes sport-oriented driving much more enjoyable. And it can also help in some urban, big-city streets where you are constantly turning corners every block or two. After driving cars with rack-and-pinion, whenever I get back into an older car with recirculating-ball, it feels, in comparison, like I'm piloting a boat.




3. Electronic Ignition/Engine-controls

A constant ritual for most car-owners, until the early-mid 1970s, was the annual (or bi-annual) ignition tune-up every 5000-10,000 miles, which required new spark-plugs, breaker-points, distributor-rotor, condenser, manual timing-adjustment (remember that strobe timing-light?), and sometimes new spark-plug wires and distributor housing. Engines wouldn't start, run, idle correctly, run smoothly, or give top power or gas-mileage if you neglected the tune-ups...and, at worst, could leave you stranded. All-electronic, breakerless systems could be ordered and installed aftermarket, but relatively few car-owners were even aware of them. Chrysler, in 1972, was the first American company to make electronic, breakerless systems standard...GM followed in 1975, and AMC/Ford shortly after (my brother's 1979 Renault Le Car, BTW, still had breaker-point ignition...the French were late to convert).

Electronic ignition, of course, had many advantages over the old breaker-point systems, and was, IMO, a tremendous advance. There was, of course, greatly-improved ignition reliability. Tune-up intervals, in most cases, were extended to mere 30,000-mile spark-plug changes, and little else. Some modern platinum-tip spark plugs can last for 100,000 miles (if they don't get burned into the cylinder-head threads so tightly, over time, that the technicians can't unscrew them or get them out). Winter-starting, in cold weather, is much more reliable because the voltage-regulator and coil can deliver a much hotter spark to cold plugs. Even pinging and knocking is held at bay, because the engine-computer often has knock-sensors that automatically retard the spark-timing when pinging is detected, allowing, in some cases, the use of lower-octane gasoline.

A number of different companies can be given some credit for helping to develop modern electronic-ignition and engine-control systems, but a lot of it, of course, has to go to the German Bosch company for their outstanding contributations. Even today, they produce an outstanding line of spark-plugs and ignition parts.




2. Car-Based, Full-Time All-Wheel-Drive

The second-most-important auto-industry feature of my lifetime, IMO, has been the development of car-based AWD with a flexible center-differential. AWD is most-noted, of course, for greatly-improved traction and stability on wet/icy roads. But, because of a number of factors and how it is programmed, it can also help with more-even front/rear weight-distribution for handling and tire-wear. AWD is becoming more and more expected as a luxury-car option (where it is not standard, like on the luxury Audi A8), and, like anti-lock brakes and electronic traction-aids, is being recognized as a major safety-advance.

Modern AWD differs markedly from earlier part-time 4WD systems that can trace their lineage back to the famous World War II military Jeep, Dodge Power-Wagon truck, and the original British Land Rover. Those systems were simple, unsophisticated, and designed strictly for off-pavement/off-road use, with occasional use on slippery on-pavement conditions like snowstorms. They drove all four drive-wheels at exactly the same speed, with no allowance for the natural tendency of inside/outside and front/rear wheels to rotate at different speeds when going around a corner. The inside tire, of course, follows a shorter radius than the outside tire, and needs to rotate slower. On a varying-radius curve, that will also affect front-vs.-rear tire-speeds. The old conventional part-time 4WD, if used on a dry-pavement curve, when it tried to force all of the tires to rotate at the same speed, could cause tire-scrubbing, stress to the wheel-bearings, axles, drive-shafts, drive-line wind-up/binding, and even, in some cases, to the transmission. Some SUVs even had warning-stickers in the cabin preventing dry-pavement use. These part-time 4WD systems also usually had a two-speed transfer-case, which provided a secondary "Granny" Low-Range for off-road crawling and maximum-torque at extremely low speeds.

Although the many reasons are quite technical and I don't have time to go into all of them here, modern AWD (and full-time 4WD) basically differs from part-time AWD in one extremely important aspect...a center differential that allows not only side-to-side variation in tire-speeds, but also front-to-rear speeds as well. It can literally be used anywhere on-pavement (thence the term "car-based") but is not intended for heavy-duty off-road use. The center-differential can be operated by a number of different methods (viscous-fluid and electronic clutch-packs are the most common). Engineers, when they design the system, program in how much torque the system will split front-to-rear, and, in some cases, like Acura's SH-AWD, side-to-side.

Who gets credit for coming up with the modern AWD system? American Motors, in the 1981 Eagle and 1982 Eagle SX-4, was the first manufacturer I know of to use a viscous-fluid center-differential in a mass-produced car-type vehicles....they were probably 15-20 years ahead of their time, as the system they introduced was destined to start an automotive drive-train revolution, just like the original Mini of 1959 did, with its sideways-mounted engine and FWD layout. Subaru and Audi, of course, added enormously to the advancement and perfection of car-based AWD. And, today, Subaru is considered to have the simplest, most-well-balanced, and some of the most-reliable AWD systems on the market in its "Symmetrical" boxer-engine layout.

All-wheel-Drive, though, is not a free lunch, devoid of all faults. Its extra drivetrain-hardware adds weight and drag, both cutting somewhat into both fuel-mileage and power. Take a fairly low-powered sports-sedan like the Lexus IS250, for instance. All else equal, compared to the standard rear-drive (RWD) version, you will notice slower acceleration and lower EPA mileage figures on the AWD version. And AWD, of course, is also more expensive to produce and usually adds to the car's list-price. The extra differentials and CV/universal-joint boots in the drivetrain mean more service-inspections and differential-fluids to replace at factory-recommended intervals.

AWD/4WD is also NOT a license to drive on slippery roads as if they were dry-pavement. Some people just don't seem to understand this...during snowstorms, the number of pickups, SUVs, and even AWD cars involved in accidents and plowing into snowbanks is a constant reminder of it. Yes, AWD will give you much better ability to start-up on slippery roads without getting stuck, somewhat better overall stability, and greater peace-of-mind not having to worry about snowstorms keeping you stranded at home, BUT IT WILL NOT STOP YOU ANY FASTER OR PREVENT TIRES FROM LOSING GRIP ON TURNS. AWD or not, you still have to drive on slippery roads with common sense.....thumb your nose at the elements, and you may still pay the price. For maximum foul-weather traction with AWD, you still want a good set of all-season or rain/snow tires. Summer-only, dry-pavement, high-performance tires, like on the Subaru WRX/STi and Mitsubishi Evo, will sacrifice some winter-traction.....Subaru and Mitsubishi both have disclaimers to that effect.

But, given all of both the pros and cons......is AWD worth the weight/cost and service? For me, IMO, a very definite YES. And the ever-growing popularity of Subarus, Audis, and other AWD cars, especially in Northern and Mountain states, shows that a lot of other car-buyers, today, think so, too.



1. Electronic Fuel-Injection

Well, here it is…….in my opinion, THE single most important auto-industry advance of my lifetime. And, once again, though a number of companies share in the credit, my hat has to go off (for the few times that I actually take it off) to Bosch for its development and pioneering of the well-known K and L-Jetronic injection systems.

Mechanical fuel-injection, of course, was nothing new, being used in some German aircraft engines in World War II, planned (but, to my knowledge, not actually used) for the advanced Tucker Torpedo sedan of 1948, and offered in some Chevy and Chrysler models in the mid-late 1950s. But, for a number of reasons, carburators (the basic design of which dated back to the 1930s), remained the primary fuel-delivery system with most manufacturers until the late 1980s. My own personal opinion is that the industry, as a whole, should have converted MUCH sooner than it did (I’ve never liked carburators and never will), but, unfortunately, I can’t go back and change history.

And, I disliked carburators for a reason….I’m not writing this just to vent my frustrations or to b*tch just for the sake of b*tching. Some of them, like on 60’s vintage Ford and GM products, could allow the engine to start, warm-up, and run reasonably well. Others, like on two-barrel carbs on many 60s-vintage Chrysler V8s, many Japanese and American designs in the emission-regulated 70s and 80s, and the Electronic “Lean-Burn” carbs of the late 70s and early 80s, simply did not allow the engine,for emissions reasons, especially during warm-up, to get a rich-enough fuel/air mixture to run smoothly. Many carburators once had manually-operated chokes that, at least allowed you, as the driver, to give the engine enough fuel when cold and adjust as necessary, but they gradually faded from memory as the public just didn’t want to be bothered with them any more, and cold-engine emissions became more strict. If one forgot to push the manual choke cable back in when the engine was warm, of course, it would continue running too rich and overwhelm the emission plumbing and catalytic-converter.

Carburators were produced by a number of companies like Carter, Rochester, Holly, etc…. and some of them ran better than others (a friend of mine has a carb-equipped Smokey and the Bandit 1979 Trans-Am that runs reasonably well). But, all too often, with automatic chokes, you would either get too much choke/butterfly valve (flooding), too little choke (overly-lean mixture and stalling/stumbling/hesitation), fast-idle speeds that were either too high or too low, carburetor-icing and engine-stalling in cold/wet conditions from manifold heat-riser systems that were either poorly-designed or not working, lean-surging even when warm, and a whole host of other problems that, as often as not, would drive you nuts (and be dangerous pulling out into traffic). As I stated earlier, not all carbs ran that poorly, but WAY too many of them did, especially after emissions-rules started in the early 1970s. The auto-industry, IMO, should have clearly converted to electronic fuel injection in the 1970s (and a few car-models did), but, for a number of reasons (I’d bet that cost was a big one) the industry refused to do so until the average carburetor-performance got SO poor in the 1980s (and the public complaint-rate with auto-performance so high) that something drastic clearly had to be done. By then, too, emissions regulations had become so strict that carbs, even with electronic controls, simply couldn’t meet the standards any more.

Modern electronic fuel-injection (EFI), FINALLY adopted almost throughout the auto-industry by the late 1980s-early 1990s, was, in my opinion, a true Godsend, and one of the finest developments the auto-industry ever came up with….clearly, by a long-shot, the best one in my lifetime. The accurate, electronically-controlled fuel-metering, ranging from the simpler throttle-body injection (TBI) to the ultra-precise Direct-Injection (DI) right into the cylinder itself, calculates, hundreds of times each second, exactly what fuel-air mixture the engine needs for best mileage/power/drivability and adjusts the fuel-injector rate as necessary. Long-gone (thankfully), are the old days of too-much or too-little choke, too-fast or too-slow idle-speeds, engine-flooding, stalling/stumbling, carburetor-icing, and the Pain-in-the-A** driving that accompanied them.

And, good riddance ....…..may those days never return.

scgt652

Exactly. The dent resistant body panels helped promote Saturn's image as a purveyor of affordable cars that were cheap, practical, and easy to maintain. Saturns appealed to people who just wanted a reliable and low-cost means of transportation.

mmarshall

Lots of small cars, though, were fairly reliable, low-cost transportation. Saturns, though, were more than just that. They not only introduced simple deal-making, customer-friendly service-procedures similiar to luxury-nameplates, and clever features on the cars themselves, such as the simple spin-off transmission filters, shiny waterborne paint, and plastic body-panels. And, for a compact car, the underlying space-frame was also strong and safe in an accident. But Saturns were arguably best known for the plastic body-panels (which were used only on the sides, not the hood/roof/trunk)......they (again, arguably) did plastic-panels better than attempts by any other manufacturer.........hence, that was for that reason that I focused on them in the article.

scgt652

Do you prefer hydraulic power steering or electronic power steering?

spwolf

nice writeup!

Brian@Vossen

I concur!

mmarshall

Well, it's nice, of course, not to have hydraulic hoses to inspect, power-steering-fluid to leak and require changing/flushing, and the groans that sometimes come with low-speed power steering at its limits. But, in general, my main concern is how the vehicle steers, how quick it responds, and how much tactile road "feel" or feedback, comes through the steering wheel into your hands. In general, I think that, for years, in general, BMW has done the best power-steering systems, although some other vehicles, such as Mercedes, are now getting close. The hydraulic power-steering in my Subaru Outback is also more to my tastes than what you would normally expect from that type of vehicle....and, especially with the new tires on it, approxmates a BMW handling feel.

My first experience with electric power-stering (that I can remember) was test-driving a first-Generation Saturn VUE......it had all the road-feel of a shot of novocaine in the dentist's office. Auto-test magazines also, at the time, found early electric-power-steering units wanting in road-feel. But, since then, chassis-engineers have learned quite a bit about how to dial in some tactile-feel in the electric units, and the newer ones are substantially better.

llamaboiz

well... i wouldn't mind 3 Webber 48IDA's sticking out of my 2IS's hood

Justin2JZ

Very good write up Mr.Marshall

mmarshall

Thanks, Gentlemen.

In my reviews, I often complain about a number of things in today's new cars, such as the stiffer rides, firmly-padded seats, cheap hood-prop-rods, lower-profile tires, lack of body-side-mouldings, plastic engine-covers, overly-plastic interiors, head-bumping humpback-whale rooflines, etc.....

......But there is another side to the story. Today's cars also have a number of great improvements over the cars I grew up with and drove in my youth/young adulthood. With this write-up, I wanted to (finally) present that other side of the story.

edgeucated

iTrader: (4)

wow your knowledge of cars is amazing. It also makes me wonder how old you are haha, jk

mmarshall

I remember triple-carbs, or Tri-Paks........usually but not always three two-barrels, in older cars like some 427 Corvettes, early/mid-60s 389 Pontiacs, 340 and 440 Plymouths/Dodges, and some other vintage muscle-cars. Keeping just one carb, with its set-screws/choke/float/fast-idle-cam/butterfly/manifold heat-riser in top shape and working properly was often bad enough.......adding multiple-linkages to two other carbs under the same hood, and keeping them working properly as well could be a real handful.

I've known some vintage car-owners with tri-carb setups that got so tired trying to keep the carbs set-up correctly (or taking them to the shop for the mechanics/techs to do it) that they just gave up and (you guessed it) got a car with EFI.

mmarshall

Thanks. There's also a lot, however, that I don't know.


Well, though my interest in cars dates to an even younger age, I started driving (and got my license) in the late 1960's.....I'll let you take it from there.


Though, of course, I was too young to actually drive, starting at age 7, my mom used to let me sit next to her, reach over, and steer my Dad's (used) 1955 Pontiac at low speeds whenever safety and traffic permitted (there was a lot less traffic in those days). Those were, of course, also the days before seat-belts.

Speaking of seat-belts, they did, of course, contribute enormously to safety, but, IMO, didn't really do much to change the car-ownership or driving experience, which is why I didn't include them on the list.

My interest didn't just stop with cars, either. Later, after I went to work for the FAA in aeronautical charting and flight-procedures, I got my Private Pilot's License.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

great write-up, and yes, cars now are world's better in terms of features, manufacturing quality, safety, reliability, handling, and technology. this last one, technology, has really enabled all of it, making cars with robots and lasers is much more consistent and precise.

LeX2K

Really interesting write-up, thumbs up from me.

It is too bad that Saturn was put out to pasture, I think with persistence the brand could have evolved into a substantial force in the market. But as usual, GM fell back into their old ways and screwed the entire thing up.

I will disagree somewhat on the plastic body panels though. One big problem it creates is because the panels are not as strong as steel, you need a subframe support, which has a tendency to rust badly. This happens because water gets trapped between the subframe and the outer shell. You don't know it's happening either because the plastic exterior of course will never rust. Another problem is over time, the panels warp and deform from the heat and cold. And in very cold climates, the plastic breaks down and cracks, sometimes to the point where you will see chunks and holes in the panels. In a moderate accident, things can get really ugly.

So good concept, but it needed refinement. Of course GM gave up on Saturn so another good idea from GM that never had a chance to mature.