Too Much Technology?

[WarrenJ]

Warren, its crazy. I wanted out of here so badly. I actually had a job in Phoenix in 1990. House was about $100K and the taxes were $600. Offered me the same salary, it was a dream come true. Wife would not go to Phoenix and had friends ripping the place and telling me all the negatives. Six months later I was laid off with the severe downturn in real estate business and scrambling, and six months later I was divorced. Now my taxes are $9000, and they robbed a gas station down the corner last week at gun point along with the patrons. Long Guyland gotta love it. I am trapped like a dog

Woof!

Sorry, I'm sure you didn't expect me to let that one go by?

Regards,

Warren

[TDK]

Folks,

First, let me state that I am awash in technology and promote it shamelessly in every aspect of my work and at home wherever appropriate.

There can be no doubt that technology has improved automobiles from virtually every aspect. The overwhelming majority of posts have pointed out outstanding examples of a multitude of improvements. Yes, yes - all true and wonderful things...

But. This same technological evolution has created a frustration-malaise across a broad segment of the public. Most people have little concept, skill or desire to try to understand or repair anything (and maybe that's a good thing with some folk's concept of fixin'). We are getting collectively dumber and the technology-foci has shifted up and almost out of reach for the masses. There have been a few posts that noted that darker aspect and perhaps Mhinchley was referring to it (although he should have figured on getting clobbered from this pro-techno crowd).

Consider this, The frustration might be based on the fact that we used to be able to figure out what was wrong (with almost any car, appliance or electrical device) by observation of wear or a few simple tests. Today, we must depend on built-in or hung-on diagnostic computers. And if you are so bold as to attempt your own repair and it comes out very wrong - hello litigation (but that's another topic).

Hey now! hands off that keyboard and settle down... I am certainly not objecting to the great advance (and requirement) of computerized diagnostics etc. I am simply saying that we humans, have lost control to some degree such that we must depend on specialized machines to tell us what's wrong about other machines and then use other mission-critical tools or machines to complete/validate the repairs.

Perhaps automobiles are poor example... Alrighty then, can you understand or repair the appliances lurking around you? Forget the computer (swapping parts and no chance of a soldering iron doing any good). Just try to figure out the once-humble dishwasher, clothes washer/dryer, refrigerator or furnace. All of those alliances have been digitized to the degree that they are certainly more technologically-versatile and dependable - but also relegated to the "swap parts and pray" repair dance. Do we really need 36-different cycle-combination to wash clothes? Does the dishwasher really need a laser to determine if the plates are clean (OK, kidding here, I think anyway...)?

For sure all this progress is all inevitable, but that does not mean that we all should ignore the grander implications (that we are incrementally loosing comprehension and control). Does anyone recall Tom Joad replacing a piston/rod with a only few hand tools on the family's "Clampetmobile" during their trek to California? The picture is hard to conjure up today, but I don't want that kind of trip either.

There are still some automobile markets on the planet where a "dumbed-down" vehicle is desirable. Granted, those places usually don't give a rat's posterior about fuel efficiency or the environment.

So what's my point?

Hey I readily admit that there is no going back and who would want to anyway? Not me pal.

However, I do believe Mhinchley had a good point to ponder and his opinion above all - is important.

All IMHO (and this rambling rant has not been fueled by home-brewed Margaritas, yet - but the day is young).

[JasonA]

A 1980 car easier to diagnose than a modern Cadillac?! Ha! I owned a 1984 Cutlass. It had a non-points HEI distributor and that part was okay. It was near impossible to set timing because you had to go through this song and dance about unplugging the TPS, unplugging the ignition module, turning the distributor, and resetting everything in the correct order. None of that on a modern engine, as you know...the timing is always correct.

That 1984 Cutlass had MILES of vacuum lines. If you want to talk about a diagnosis nightmare, check out a vehicle from the late 1970s or early 1980s. You didn't know if you were coming or going. It had vacuum distribution blocks, tons of vacuum lines, vacuum-operated everything, etc. On top of that, it had a complete Air Injection Reactor system, or an air pump that added air into the exhaust system to help clean it up. That added a lot of mess to the engine compartment, making repairs even more difficult. Need to replace a valve cover gasket? It takes you an hour just to strip it down to be able to REMOVE the v/c.

Then the real beast -- the computer-controlled Quadrajet carburetor. It was an excellent carb, and mine actually ran really well. But again, this was one of those parts that made troubleshooting pretty difficult.

But in the end, TDK is correct -- everyone's opinion is valid, whether it be in the majority of minority. That's what makes these forums so great.

[BodybyFisher]

I agree, however opinions are valid when they are in the right forum. Lets not forget that early on I pulled the thread back in line and called for what GM was doing right. And in spite of that, it went seriously negative. Staying on topic when someone with 6000 posts requests it, and not antagonizing or not grandstanding is common courtesy. I had a specific intent with this thread. In the correct on-topic thread I would love to discuss what I think GM has done wrong or what they could improve on. As a matter of fact, when I met that GM rep last week I told her I would love to discuss GM with her, being a live long GM Lover. But I told her that if we did not speak, that SERVICE is their Achilles heel.

[justgreat]

it's easy to get caught up in the rhetoric...it's best to stay on point. hei was created to acccomodate the ever tightening emmission requirments set forth by the feds. once cat converters were introduced to cut back on the tail pipe emmissions, a standard points/condensor type ignition was not precise or reliable (remember, the pollution systems needed to work as designed for 50,000 miles without maintenance) enough to meet the requirments. a few of the euro manfrs used double points as a rube goldberg arrangement to ensure a greater degree of reliablity but soon after, all manfrs did away with the points tyle ignition system.

this is why i used the drive by wire technology as an example in my earlier post: it takes time to sort out the kinks in any new system. the same goes for electric steering. lots of complaints about a lack of "feel" with the new steering mechanism. both the dbw and the electric steering were designed to help eliminate parasitic loss from the engine. this helps fuel economy...in very small amounts, for sure, but every bit counts.

i will say this though and cadillac is a prime example of catching the wave: there has been a backlash by the public for all the techno crap on the dashboards: example is the I-drive (?) by bmw and the audi system (don't recall their name for it). caddy designers realized that the last thing a consumer wants, while driving no less!!, is a myriad of buttons. most people want the latest and greatest (hey, we're consumers) but in a car, it needs to be integrated so that it's seamless to the user...especially in a car going 70 mph.

jackg

90seville 100k

[thu]

My 1993 has 298,000 miles on it. I've done much of the work on it. It's computerized (OBD I). I find that the computerization makes much of the diagnosis and repair simple, accurate, and fast. Not much guesswork.

I recently had a problem where my 1993 Deville would just die. I pulled the trouble code and it said that it lost communication with the distributor. I started to diagnose the distributor with the help of the computer, but after about an hour of doing that, I just went to the local junkyard, grabbed an entire distributor assembly including the cap and coil for $70. 1/2 hour later, I was back on the road.

Another time, the TPS went haywire in my 1985 Deville. Putting the car into diagnostic mode where it exercised all the actuators, the computer said that the TPS was bad. I replaced it. The computer even told me how far to rotate the unit (and which way) so that it would read correctly.

Less guesswork. Simpler systems. Higher reliability (1993 Deville = 298,000 miles; 1985 Deville - 238,000 miles). Easier diagnosis.