GM Pulls Ads From L.A. Times

[timwhit]

I don't think we are arguing, at least not yet. I couldn't find any useful information on that link pertaining to the current discussion.

 

[jtr1962]

These raw numbers seem like they are pretty difficult to compare between cities. Especially when one city might include mostly commuter trains (LA), while another one is mostly subway (NY).

What do you think?

I agree that the data is pretty complex since it's straight from the source (American Public Transit Association) in undigested form. It's basically up to a others to present the data in more usable format. Truth is it would be nice to see some US statistics such as total public transit ridership in various cities, plus a breakdown for bus, subway, and light rail in each city. I just haven't been able to find such a thing yet. They do have some .pdfs with only light rail data but technically that's not subway. The heavy rail data they have lumps subway and commuter rail which is exactly what we don't want.

I'll keep looking. Something is bound to turn up. Nothing relevant to mass transit in the link Merc posted though.

 

[jtr1962]

Here is light rail data and heavy rail data by agency. Since commuter rail data is separate we can assume that heavy rail only includes subway. Bus data is also separate.

 

[LiamC]

Why not? The ratio of power output to engine displacement is interesting for engineers but irrelevant to users.

Not necesarily. All things being equal, I'll take more power thanks. Under light throttle loads, a more highly tuned engine can be more fuel efficient, as a way to increase power is to decrease frictional losses or another is to improve fuel/air mixture/butn ratios -> the net result being more efficient use of a given volume of fuel.

A four-speed auto gear box is fine for most applications. An extra gear becomes more desirable when the engine is very highly tuned to increase HP/L.

At any time, an extra gear will reduce fuel consumption. Desireable IMO.

Rather than push for closer gear ratios, perhaps you should ask why CVT (Continuously Variable Transmission) gearboxes haven't taken over by now. They allow the engine to be tuned for low fuel consumption while still supporting high power output and are simpler to boot.

Because the belt mechanisms used to "drive" the CVT cannot withstand high torque outputs. They are getting better, but of necessity this will involve costly, cutting edge materials and technology -> which translates into $$$.

BTW, 220hp is a ludicrous amount of power for most applications. It's partly to support the increasing weight of vehicles. The way to save significant amounts of energy is to make vehicles lighter, not heavier!

Compare a car of a given size from 20 years ago to a similar dimensioned car today. Todays' car will be lighter and have significantly more equipment.

Aluminium (the correct spelling, not the U.S. abomination) and mangnesium as well as volume plastics use are becoming increasingly common in the drive to lower weight.

 

[timwhit]

JTR, that is pretty good info. I still am not entirely sure if it is directly comparable between cities.

It is too bad that it is not a bit newer. I have read multiple places that public transportation has been used a lot more since last summer when oil prices were much higher, even after the price of gas declined.

 

[jtr1962]

I heard the same thing. One reason ridership has remained higher despite the decrease is gas prices is because roads are saturated in many places. I think what happened was that in some instances people taking mass transit to save money found out that it was no slower than their usual commute on traffic-clogged roads. As a result, they decided to stick with it even as gas prices declined. This congestion situation has existed in NYC for literally decades. Other areas are starting to catch up with us now. I suspect for a variety of reasons the next decades will see a huge resurgence in mass transit of all types.

 

[timwhit]

I hope you are right. Even though the EL in Chicago had the highest number of riders in 2005 since 1985, they still had to increase the cost to ride. Plus, at the beginning of 2005 they were talking about cutting service at off-hours and on certain lines.

If the CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) wants to increase ridership they should probably improve service, such as run more trains, make them on-time, etc. This translates to most cities with poor rideship rates. If they want to entice more people to ride their trains/buses/etc the various transit authorities should make the service better and then the ridership will come naturally.

I think the whole issue comes from budgets though (subsidies). They won't get budget increases unless ridership improves. Ridership won't increase unless service improves or as we are seeing gas prices skyrocket. Since the subsidies and budgets aren't going to get bigger I guess we will just have to wait for gas prices to increase. Personally, I can't wait.

Another offshoot to having gas prices increase is that more people will want to live closer to public transportation and their jobs. This means property value will increase in some areas and decrease in other areas. This is only good for me as my condo is both close to public transportation and close to where the highest concentration of people in the Chicagoland area work (well 3-4 miles, 15 minutes on the EL).

 

[CougTek]

I double-checked the specifications of the G6 and of many other V6 engines and, well, it is not the abomination I originally thought it was. It's not first of its class, but it isn't that bad on paper. The EPA rating for the 3.5L V6 G6 is quite good (not the GT, the 3.9L, while boasting 240HP, IS an abomination, fuel economy-wise), better than the Accord and Sonata, althought it is also 15-20% less powerful. I originally thought the Camry's V6 produced more than 200HP, but it's only good for a scant 190HP (I remember a story Clocker linked about optimistic HP ratings from some japanese manufacturers, maybe that's why the Camry's engine power has been lowered). The Camry also drinks more with its 3L V6 than the G6 with the 3.5L. However, there is no word anywhere on GM's website regarding the emission rating for the G6 (or Malibu). The Camry is classed as ULEV, the Accord is ULEV too. I don't know about the Sonata, but I read an article suggesting that the more powerful Azera is ULEV, so the Sonata is probably too. I remember some years ago, a car magazine cited studies telling that GM cars were the most polluting of all. Quite an achievement, considering they had to beat Dodge for the title! I hope it has changed.

That doesn't erase my complain about the 4-speed automatic thought.

I admit that my perception of the G6 has (slightly) improved with this thread and the research I ended up making. I still do have some personal gripe against GM, mainly the aweful service provided by the dealers. I don't know if it's a problem elsewhere, but in Québec, it's a real show-stopper (except for Saturn).

 

[timwhit]

I guess no one cares about public transit, other than JTR and me.

 

[Mercutio]

I'd have to drive for 20 minutes to even see any. Which pretty much explains the problem with it.

 

[Will Rickards]

I take public transportation when I go into the city, philly.
But for the most part I don't and thus don't care much.
Our public transportation, septa, is pretty much a joke anyway. Shortly before the MTA strike, there was a maybe less publicized septa strike. Fortunately the regional rail employees are a different union and thus weren't striking and they were running. But the lines for them were BAD the first two days. After that it wasn't bad, maybe 15minutes extra wait.
I have ridden the MTA though, have two cards in my wallet actually that I'll probably never use. Jtr, want me to mail them to you? MTA was impressive as far as on time and frequency though. The condition of the cars and the packed conditions wasn't. Now when I was in washington DC theirs was impressive.

 

[Handruin]

Public transportation can't get me to where I need to go with any chance of being cost efficient or even the slightest bit convenient. The only time I use it is when I go to Boston, which is infrequent.

 

[jtr1962]

I think the whole issue comes from budgets though (subsidies). They won't get budget increases unless ridership improves. Ridership won't increase unless service improves or as we are seeing gas prices skyrocket. Since the subsidies and budgets aren't going to get bigger I guess we will just have to wait for gas prices to increase. Personally, I can't wait.

That's the problem in a nutshell. The good news is that more people than ever are starting to ask for alternatives to the automobile. Eventually this will translate into increased subsidies and hopefully more public transit. NYC is hopefully finally going to build the long-talked about Second Avenue subway, a project which has been planned for some 70 years. At least the bond issue to fund it passed this time around.

Another offshoot to having gas prices increase is that more people will want to live closer to public transportation and their jobs. This means property value will increase in some areas and decrease in other areas. This is only good for me as my condo is both close to public transportation and close to where the highest concentration of people in the Chicagoland area work (well 3-4 miles, 15 minutes on the EL).

Definitely. I suspect that's one reason housing prices in NYC are going up like crazy. Much of the reason behind that are dischanted former suburbanites moving back, plus younger people staying in the city instead of leaving for the suburbs as many used to do. Even so, the outer boroughs, especially Queens, are underserved by the subway. We're 2.7 miles from the nearest station. The bus line which runs there used to take 10 to 15 minutes when we first moved here. Now with traffic 20 to 25 is the norm. They've long talked about building a Jewel Avenue spur to reduce the bus traffic in north Queens. If that were ever to be built, I would have a subway station a few blocks from me, and it would take probably a good 15 minutes off my travel time to Manhattan (a hypothetical Jewel Avenue spur would probably get me to the express station in 8 minutes). Right now average travel time, including the bus ride, is about 40 minutes to the first stop in Manhattan, although I've made it in 30 when the bus runs good. The subway portion of the trip is about 7.5 miles and 18 to 20 minutes. Even that used to be faster. The MTA took out the field shunting on the trains in 1995 after an accident on the Williamsburg Bridge caused by signals timed for older (pre-1960s) trains. Of course, this problem only existed in a few spots on the system but the MTA in its infinite stupidity slowed down all the trains. As a result, my express train which used to run at 50 to 55 mph now rarely exceeds 40. That adds a good 4 or 5 minutes to my travel time to Manhattan.

I guess no one cares about public transit, other than JTR and me.

Sadly, the only people that really care about public transit are those in the few large cities which it actually serves well. For most of America, the closest they get to a train is when one hits their SUV at a grade crossing. However, the "graying" of the population will mean in the future more people can't drive. Also, for productivity reasons more people will want to get some work done during their commute, or just plain relax for the day ahead. This obviously isn't possible if you drive. Oil prices will also push more people into public transit. As I said, it's only a matter of time. We all know that not all areas can be effectively served by public transit, but there are a lot of them which can be but currently aren't.

 

[jtr1962]

I take public transportation when I go into the city, philly.
I have ridden the MTA though, have two cards in my wallet actually that I'll probably never use. Jtr, want me to mail them to you?

Sure. I'll PM you with my address. The cards might have expired by now, but I can just have the money transferred to a fresh card at a token booth.

MTA was impressive as far as on time and frequency though. The condition of the cars and the packed conditions wasn't. Now when I was in washington DC theirs was impressive.

Crowding is a downside when train travel is popular. That's one reason we need the Second Avenue subway. The trains in Manhattan especially are packed. Even in the outer boroughs you often have to stand during non-rush hours. Not much can be done about it in many cases short of building more lines. Lines already run at capacity during rush hours. Trains are already at the maximum length possible. BTW, what did you find lacking about the condition of the cars? Were they just dirty, or old? I'm asking because some lines still use 1960s vintage cars but we're in the process of replacing those. As for the filth, the trains are cleaned regularly but too many passengers are slobs. At least the graffiti is gone for good (sadly though "scratchiti" exists in its place).

 

[time]

Under light throttle loads, a more highly tuned engine can be more fuel efficient, as a way to increase power is to decrease frictional losses or another is to improve fuel/air mixture/butn ratios -> the net result being more efficient use of a given volume of fuel.

Everyday cars have engines limited to 6000rpm or so. Differences in engine frictional losses aren't a big deal in this context.

I have no idea what the fuel/air mixture has to do with your argument. :scratch:

Fuel 'efficiency' can mean many different things, including higher horsepower, more thermal energy, less waste products and lower fuel consumption. Optimizing any one of these is likely to have an adverse effect on the others.

At any time, an extra gear will reduce fuel consumption.

A good rule of thumb but by no means an absolute truth. I saw a couple of broad studies that estimated an average improvement of 3-5% going from four to six gears. It depends on how highly tuned the engine is and how many gears you already have. Too many gears will make for a heavy, complicated gearbox that may end up consuming extra fuel.

Because the belt mechanisms used to "drive" the CVT cannot withstand high torque outputs. They are getting better, but of necessity this will involve costly, cutting edge materials and technology -> which translates into $$$.

Firstly, a belt mechanism is just one type of CVT - chain driven versions can be built to cope with nearly anything found in a car. Williams trialled an F1 car with CVT in 1993. It eclipsed conventionally geared cars and was promptly banned.

Secondly, this "cutting edge technology" was invented in the 19th century. True, belt-driven versions have become more viable with new materials, but see my first point.

Thirdly, it's cheaper because it's far simpler to manufacture than the planetary engineering marvels we currently use. Just take a look at your average scooter to see CVT in action.

Compare a car of a given size from 20 years ago to a similar dimensioned car today. Todays' car will be lighter and have significantly more equipment.

With a 40-year history, the Australian Ford Falcon leapt out as the obvious vehicle to compare over a 20 year period. This is a six-cylinder four-door sedan that seats five:

Year              1985            2005
Model             XF GL           BF XT
Wheelbase         2829mm          2829mm
Engine            4.1L            4.0L
Auto Gears        3               4
Length            4774mm          4916mm
Width             1854mm          1864mm
Kerb Weight       1363kg          1694kg

 

[Fushigi]

I guess no one cares about public transit, other than JTR and me.

For me to get from my home in the Chicago suburbs to our corporate office downtown Chicago involves one of the two following methods:
- A 14 minute drive to a train station, paying to park the car, some amount of waiting for a train, a 44 minute ride to downtown Chicago, a few minutes to disembark, and a taxi or shuttle ride for the remaining 20 block from the Chicago station to our building. 70 minutes is the dead minimum amount of time it can take; 80-90 is more common. And it doesn't take in to account the ever-growing difficulty in parking at the suburban train station (some suburban train stops have 3 year waiting lists for a parking spot).
- A 47-56 minute drive to a parking garage ($13 for up to 12 hours) that's across the street from our building.

Note that work re-imburses me for my trips downtown, so expense is a non-issue for me. I believe the car - train - shuttle is a few dollars cheaper overall, but it's fairly close.

That's when I go downtown. My normal daily commute is from one suburb to another. There are no bus routes serving the area, even with transfers. The train option would mean driving to the station, taking a non-express train part-way downtown (to the stop in my office's suburb), and taking some form of transport the final 6 miles to the office. It's not financially economical at all, and certainly will take a lot more time than simply driving.

I wouldn't mind taking mass transit, but it fails to make the case for being a superior form of transport when personal costs & time are factored in.

 

[timwhit]

When I was commuting from the suburbs, I would take Metra and get downtown in under 45 minutes on an express train for a cost of ~$3 with a montly pass. This 45 minutes is including the walk from Michigan and VanBuren to Adams and Wells where I used to work.

Where is the office in Chicago that it is 20 blocks from the train station? Nothing in the Loop is 20 blocks from any of the Metra stations. I would guess that you would arrive at Union Station.

I have a hard time believing that you can get downtown during rush hour in under an hour when the train takes 44 minutes.

 

[Howell]

I have in my wallet a monthly pass to ride the bus system an unlimited number of times. I must have my car available for work so I used to leave it in the garage and ride the bus to and from work. My residence was 1 block from the bus stop (5 minute walk) and the office was 2.5 blocks.

We just moved into our new offices which have unsecured parking but I'm still only 2.5 blocks from a stop. I have also changed residences and so I'm now 2.5 blocks from the stop.

The show stopper now is that I'm not willing to leave my car parked overnight in our unsecured lot. My car is a jet-black, tan-leather 2001 VW Jetta VR6 5-speed manual with sport package.The downside is besides not getting in my 15 minutes of reading in the morning my car does not have have time to warm up. I drive slowly and shift below 3000 RPM to try to spare the engine and the commute still only takes 10 minutes.

Soon though, I'll have enough cash to fix the junker car I bought that I am willing to leave in the lot. All buses have bike racks on the front so when it is warm enough I can ride the bike to the stop.

I like riding the public transportation. I also like driving. I like reading on my commute. It's pretty simple.

 

[jtr1962]

Since we're doing comparisons here's what I used to do when I commuted from my house to college in Princeton:

walk to 164th Street bus stop (0.2 miles): 2 minutes
Q65A bus from 164th Street stop to Forest Hills subway station (2.7 miles): 15 minutes
E train to Penn Station (10 miles): 25 minutes
*NJ Transit local train Penn Station to Princeton Junction (48.5 miles): 60 minutes
NJ Transit shuttle Princeton Junction to Princeton (3.2 miles): 5 minutes

*With later classes I could take an Amtrak train which was scheduled to cover the 48.5 miles in 40 minutes, with only one intermediate stop instead of the eight stops made by the local train.

Total distance was 64.6 miles, total time in motion about 107 minutes. The trip usually took about 2 hours or so counting waiting times, and allowing about a 6 to 8 minute cushion so as not to miss the scheduled commuter train. Coming home took about the same amount of time, although when I made my subway and local bus connections just right I made the trip in an hour and 50 minutes. That's an average speed of 35 mph, on public transportation, changing vehicles 3 times, and walking a few blocks besides. BTW, the transfer between the subway and commuter train at Penn Station involved the equivalent of about 4 blocks walking.

Now let's compare this to driving. When I slept away the first 3 semesters and my dad picked me up it would rarely take less than two hours to make the trip. Two hours, 15 minutes was more like it, and this wasn't even during rush hours when it easily would have taken 3 hours or more. Even the best time we ever made, 1 hour, 45 minutes, was only 5 minutes faster than the best time by public transit, and only 15 minutes longer than the usual travel time. And I always made the trip to school during the height of the rush hour. Driving cost more as well, a lot more. And I really couldn't study traveling by car as I could by train, even as a passenger

My point here? In very congested areas public transportation is not only cheaper than driving, but as fast or faster. And the time spent isn't totally wasted as with driving since you can do other things. Just out of curiosity Fushigi how many miles is that 44 minute train ride, and how many stops does the train make? I'm asking because with a decent electrified line, which probably doesn't exist over there, you can maintain 45+ mph average speeds even stopping every few miles (just look at the train I used to take as an example). Limited stop expresses should be able to average well in excess of 60 mph, even 75 mph if track conditions are good (the aforementioned Amtrak express once covered the 38.4 miles between Newark and Princeton Junction in 23 minutes flat, start to stop).

I don't commute now, and given that both the bus and subway are running slower than they used to I wouldn't want to. And I would want to commute by auto even less than by train. Commuting by auto, especially in the Northeast, is strictly for masochists.

 

[timwhit]

There are two electrified commuter lines in Chicago. One is the South Shore line that goes to Michigan City, Indiana. The other is Metra Electric that I used to take for downtown every day for about 9 months.

I don't know what line Fushigi takes, but he doesn't live south or in Indiana so he is on a diesel train.

 

[timwhit]

Forgot to mention, the line I took was about a 25 mile trip and made about 5 stops from where I got on to where I got off. The trip took about 35 minutes.

 

[jtr1962]

That's about a 43 mph average speed, which is similar to what the electrified lines here offer. OK, so the problem definitely isn't that you don't have decent trains there. I guess that some areas are just too far from train stations to making commuting practical. We have that problem here as well, although to a lesser extent, and mainly only once you're more than about 30 miles from Manhattan. Most suburbs closer in are within a few minutes of a commuter rail station.

 

[timwhit]

My parents live less than 1 mile from 2 different commuter train stations.

They live in a pretty old community that was built-up because of the commuter trains, which were built in the late 1800's. The lines were electrified in 1926. More than 50% of their community of 20k commutes into the city every day.

Many of the other commuter lines were built after WWII to areas quite a bit further from the city as the population grew and spread away from the city. The trains were built after the population came, not before.

 

[Mercutio]

I don't mind riding the South Shore if I have to go to the narrow area of Chicago that's pretty much defined by Michigan Avenue. The ticket, from where I live, is about $8 one way. The trip from the Randolph street stop to the closest stop to my apartment probably averages 90 minutes, which is about the same as driving in non-rush-hour traffic.

I'd rather ride in and take a cab to get around down town than deal with the pedestrians, busses and fun of $20/hour parking... although I still end up doing that if I'm going someplace on the south or west sides of the loop.

 

[Fushigi]

I have a hard time believing that you can get downtown during rush hour in under an hour when the train takes 44 minutes.

I never said rush hour. I'm an early riser and when I go downtown I'm usually out the door before 5AM. Mostly this lets me leave the downtown office before 3PM so I'm out before the afternoon traffic builds to much. Door to door is 44 miles.

As to which commuter train, it's this one. I'd have to leave later in the morning than I do now, which sucks. The shortest time is 41 minutes from Route 59 (8 miles from my house) to Union Station. The downtown office is 1.3 miles from the station. 17 blocks, not 20; my mistake.

I wish I could take the South Shore like Merc; our building is attached via underground tunnel to the building the SS ends at.

 

[timwhit]

At 5am there isn't too much traffic. And I would agree that 8 miles to the closest station is a good distance.

But, I would never buy a house that far from public transportation. Personal choices differ quite a bit in this case.

Where is your employer's office located downtown?

I'm at 321 N Clark now, was in the AT&T building before.

 

[Fushigi]

At 5am there isn't too much traffic. And I would agree that 8 miles to the closest station is a good distance.

Actually, you'd be surprised how much traffic there is at that hour.

But, I would never buy a house that far from public transportation. Personal choices differ quite a bit in this case.

The house was purchased based on features. amenities, and price; i.e. bang for buck. We both work in the 'burbs so a drive to our respective employers was pretty much a given. I only go downtown periodically, like once or twice a month.

Where is your employer's office located downtown?

The Aon building, formerly the Amoco building. I park in Millenium Park garage, which has a pedestrian exit literally across the street.

My wife, FWIW, works about 3 miles from the house so she only has a 7 minute commute.

 

[LiamC]

Everyday cars have engines limited to 6000rpm or so. Differences in engine frictional losses aren't a big deal in this context.

Your source for this assertion? Nearly every engineer quoted when describing a new engine makes mention of decreased frictional losses. Either this is the greatest conspiracy theory in history, or, automotive engineers do pay attention to frictional losses—so either all these engineers are wasting their time, or frictional losses do have a perceptable impact on fuel usage.

Improved fuel/air mixtures—leaner burn—less pollutants, increased power, decreased fuel usage—choose any two.

At any time, an extra gear will reduce fuel consumption.

A good rule of thumb but by no means an absolute truth. I saw a couple of broad studies that estimated an average improvement of 3-5% going from four to six gears. It depends on how highly tuned the engine is and how many gears you already have. Too many gears will make for a heavy, complicated gearbox that may end up consuming extra fuel.

Broad assertion. Newer gearboxes while being more complicated, may make use of newer/lighter materials. This can be used to lower overall weight, or to add features to a package at the same weight. I'd need to see the assumptions of said survey before accepting these findings as gospel.

Because the belt mechanisms used to "drive" the CVT cannot withstand high torque outputs. They are getting better, but of necessity this will involve costly, cutting edge materials and technology -> which translates into $$$.

Firstly, a belt mechanism is just one type of CVT - chain driven versions can be built to cope with nearly anything found in a car. Williams trialled an F1 car with CVT in 1993. It eclipsed conventionally geared cars and was promptly banned.

Then Williams/DAF are sitting on a gold mine. Nobody else has been able to produce a CVT that can handle high torque for passenger car lifetimes. BTW, "chain" in the context of CVT is a relative term as it bears little resemblance to the common usage term as it has to deal with loads in more directions than the simple flexible, strong in tension, "chain".

http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/gearbox/tech_gear_cvt.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission

In fact Audi are the first to offer a CVT with even middling torque handling abilities, and if you look at all the software/electronic addons (some of which are to enable to CVT to survive high torque loads), it is no less complicated than todays automatic gearboxes

Secondly, this "cutting edge technology" was invented in the 19th century. True, belt-driven versions have become more viable with new materials, but see my first point.

Refuted. See above.

Thirdly, it's cheaper because it's far simpler to manufacture than the planetary engineering marvels we currently use. Just take a look at your average scooter to see CVT in action.

Low torque application. Refuted, see above. Particularly see the first link. Simple in pricipal CVT may be, but the addons being used in production, epecially to overcome limitations of the design, make it anything but.

Compare a car of a given size from 20 years ago to a similar
dimensioned car today. Todays' car will be lighter and have significantly more equipment.

With a 40-year history, the Australian Ford Falcon leapt out as the obvious vehicle to compare over a 20 year period. This is a six-cylinder four-door sedan that seats five:

Year              1985            2005
Model             XF GL           BF XT
Wheelbase         2829mm          2829mm
Engine            4.1L            4.0L
Auto Gears        3               4
Length            4774mm          4916mm
Width             1854mm          1864mm
Kerb Weight       1363kg          1694kg

You're kidding right? :eekers:

An apples to pears comparison. Control Blade independent rear suspension alone is 50 to 80kgs heavier than live axle it replaced.

Strip out the extra added equipment (air bags, air-con, ABS, EBD, power drivers seat, adjustable everything (mirrors, steering wheel, rear seats etc.), extra sound deadening (IIRC 16kgs over BA alone) and so on and so forth, and then compare the weights.

 

[jtr1962]

But, I would never buy a house that far from public transportation. Personal choices differ quite a bit in this case.

I'm the same way. Even where I live now is less than ideal since I need to take a bus to the subway. At least the bus is only a few blocks away. I would never live someplace where public transportation wasn't within easy walking distance (say 1 mile or less), or wasn't frequent enough to be useful. The alternative, daily commuting by auto, qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[ddrueding]

The nearest excuse for a commuter rail line is CalTrain, running from Gilroy (40 minutes north by car) to San Francisco (1:20 by car) takes 2:10; a 40-minute drive!. Even the commuter run from San Jose to SF takes an hour, where the drive is 35 minutes.

Efficient? I think not.

 

[Fushigi]

Check the Nissan Murano for a mass-market CVT-equipped vehicle. It's 3.5L V6 is tuned for 245HP and 246 ft-lbs of torque and has optional AWD that brings the curb weight to about 4000 pounds. It's rated for towing another 3500 pounds. Edmunds notes the CVT improves mileage but comes at the expense of a sluggish response in city driving.

 

[LiamC]

Check the Nissan Murano for a mass-market CVT-equipped vehicle. It's 3.5L V6 is tuned for 245HP and 246 ft-lbs of torque and has optional AWD that brings the curb weight to about 4000 pounds. It's rated for towing another 3500 pounds. Edmunds notes the CVT improves mileage but comes at the expense of a sluggish response in city driving.

Your point?

Yes it's a CVT. No it is not like any other on the market. Different technology requiring extremely fine machine tolerances. Costly as hell. One exception does not make the rule. Using this example (for CVT) is like saying that a 1908 Mercedes slide valve and the engine in the Bugatti Veyron are both "engines", and hey haven't piston engines taken the world by storm? Yes they are both engines. But that's as far as it goes.

Engineering can overcome inherent deficiencies, but at a cost.

There is no one reason why CVT's have not taken over the market.

The original post (by time) was (paraphrase) hey if you want more ratios, why not a CVT instead of a conventional auto?

I was trying to outline a few reasons why CVT's aren't the answer (now or yet—this is of course subject to change as advances are made).

Yep, the problems of "CVT's" (generic) are being addressed, but at the cost of some of a CVT's supposed advantages, simplicity & weight. So if the advantages are eroded to address the deficiencies, what's the point? Some auto makers can turn engineering quirks into valuable marketing differentiation (Subaru—flat four, Mazda—rotary), but not everyone can, and it usually takes time (no pun intended) to build a history.

 

[Fushigi]

My point is simply that there are commercial CVTs mated to engines with a decent amount of torque. And that powertrain could be put to use hauling a reasonably heavy load. I would assume Nissan stress-tested the setup before approving it for production.

While CVTs may not be the be-all end-all, they are here. Heck, up until a couple of years ago I occasionally saw an old CVT-equipped Subaru Justy running around Chicagoland.

As to whether or not they'll take over the market, I have no opinion. It doesn't really matter to me as long as the engine's power is delivered efficiently to the wheels.

Oh, there are other CVT-equipped vehicles on the market right now: Honda Civic Hybrid, Audi A4, Honda Insight, Toyota Highlander Hybrid, Mercury Montego, and the Ford Freestyle.

 

[LiamC]

My point is simply that there are commercial CVTs mated to engines with a decent amount of torque. And that powertrain could be put to use hauling a reasonably heavy load. I would assume Nissan stress-tested the setup before approving it for production.

Again, your point? I addressed everything you reiterated here in my previous post, none of which you addressed, you just repeated what you said in your first. I did not say there were no CVT's, just that they were not common. I also pointed out that the designs (Audi, Nissan, generic CVT) have as much in common with each other as side-valve and overhead cam piston engines. One example != general use.

While CVTs may not be the be-all end-all, they are here. Heck, up until a couple of years ago I occasionally saw an old CVT-equipped Subaru Justy running around Chicagoland.

Again, see above. I am not disputing that CVT's are "here". There are reasons why CVT's are not mainstream. It's like saying rotary engines are here. They are, but they are not mainstream.

As to whether or not they'll take over the market, I have no opinion. It doesn't really matter to me as long as the engine's power is delivered efficiently to the wheels.

Oh, there are other CVT-equipped vehicles on the market right now: Honda Civic Hybrid, Audi A4, Honda Insight, Toyota Highlander Hybrid, Mercury Montego, and the Ford Freestyle.

So? See above. Strawman argument. You are saying that there are CVT's on the market. So? You replied to a post in which I said that CVT's were not mainstream for various reasons. I also made no claim as to whether they would take over the market.

Please note: I have not said that anything you said was wrong, just that it was, at best, tangental to what I posted.

 

[Tannin]

Gahhh ..... In general, you are making excellent points LiamC, but I thought we were supposed to be comparing a modern car with an old one. And for this you choose a Falcon?

New Falcon: the new car you buy when you really want an instant veteran clunker.

(Sorry: I have always disliked Falcons. Heavy, crude, ugly things at the best of times.)

 

[LiamC]

Gahhh ..... In general, you are making excellent points LiamC, but I thought we were supposed to be comparing a modern car with an old one. And for this you choose a Falcon?

New Falcon: the new car you buy when you really want an instant veteran clunker.

(Sorry: I have always disliked Falcons. Heavy, crude, ugly things at the best of times.)

Ah, no, time chose the Falcon for an old v new comparison. I just highlighted a few issues I had in relation to a "straight" XF v BF comparison. Ford obviously chose to add features rather than concentrate on absolute weight reduction, i.e. they eliminated weight from the structure where possible, and used the weight "savings" to add other features (at the expense of increased weight). Good choice? That's up to the individual.

 

[LiamC]

Actually, you remind me of a thought I had whilst formulating my replies. I have been watching Air Crash Investigations and it has struck me that none of the highlighted crashes are due to a single obvious cause. It's all about a series of circumstances taken together, none, or few of which taken together (or in isolation) are fatal/catastrophic. This is the same as the weight reduction argument (cars aren't getting lighter so engineers aren't reducing weight), CVT's (they are simple, so are "better" than conventional automatics) etc. There are so many other factors involved that it is hard to find any root cause, or valid point(s) of comparison.

Incidently, I find the whole forensic investigation of the crashes fascinating. As I'm bored shitless with programming, it's a career path I'd love to pursue, but haven't the faintest idea of how to go about it.

 

[CougTek]

Again, your point? I addressed everything you reiterated here in my previous post, none of which you addressed, you just repeated what you said in your first.

Bill, I agree with much of what you've wrote, but I think you're becoming a little bit too passionate about the subject. Fushigi participated in a very civil manner. Please don't make a sechs of yourself.

 

[Tannin]

Crash investigations are like that, Bill. As you know, my father (now retired) was an aviation safety consultant with an extensive knowledge of the factors that lead to accidents, a little of which has rubbed off on me over the years.

Blanket statement: TV shows are crap. How can I say that without having even heard of the show, never mind watched it? Simply because the amount of useful information that you can fit into an hour of good-quality TV is equal to the amount that you can absorb from a well-organised printed page in around 5 minutes max. Most TV shows, of course, do far worse than that, as they space out the actual useful information with interminable amounts of nonsense filler material - e.g., shot of bloke in unifom with stripes on walking across the tarmac - there goes 5 seconds of non-information. Scene where some other aircraft takes of and climbs away into the sunset - another 10 wasted seconds, and so on. Add up the total wasted time on even a pretty good TV show and you are lucky to get 15 minutes in the hour.

It gets worse: assume that the 15 minutes of actual useful content is a voice over (these are usually the most information-rich parts). Measure the number of words you can speak at a normal pace in 15 minutes. Now, count off that many words on a printed page. You are looking at around 2 or 3 minutes worth of reading (assuming that you are a normal reader - i.e., neither a speed-reader nor a person that belongs in the remidial section of the other thread where Merc and Mubs are arguing about the disaster we call the modern education system).

Bottom line: TV is useless.

Ahem. What was the topic? Oh yes:

You might like to chase up Macarthur Job's excellent series of large-format books published by Australian Aviation magazine (you can buy on-line), or possibly available at larger newsagents and just about for sure at Technical Books in Swanston Street (if they haven't moved). Dry, factual, meticulously researched (as befits a world-recognised authority in the field), and compelling reading.

Back to the theme I originally started this post to respond to, yes, absolutely: accidents are practically always multi-factorial in their origin. Somewhere at home I have a wonderful little book about the major UK train disasters over 150 years or so. Bit by bit, we see the harsh lessons learned and operating systems evolve to prevent them repeating, then another, more complex disaster, and another change in signalling equipment or operating practices, and so on. Fascinating!

Actually, while I know absolutely nothing about business administration, I'd bet money that exactly the same observation applies in many other fields too. The one I have in mind is accountancy. Boring? Hmmm .... I bet that most of the spectacular business failures over the years, the ones where the company in question really ought to be raking the money in but goes out the back door instead, are similarly multi-factorial, and would make similarly compelling reading if you had the appropriate background.

 

[LiamC]

Again, your point? I addressed everything you reiterated here in my previous post, none of which you addressed, you just repeated what you said in your first.

Bill, I agree with much of what you've wrote, but I think you're becoming a little bit too passionate about the subject. Fushigi participated in a very civil manner. Please don't make a sechs of yourself.

I re-read what I wrote and point taken. I was not intending to be abrupt or disparaging, but I can see how somebody could read it that way. I apologise to Fushigi if he took it that way. It was a genuine request for more information about the point(s) raised. I could not fathom the bearing they had, and was wondering what I had missed.

Point taken Coug, I will be more careful in my response(s) next time.