Would this work? - Saving the Auto Industry content

So I have thought about this for a while with personal mixed reviews. Without trying to make it overly complex here is the idea; have the automobile manufactures design three chassis and build their cars solely around that and the chassis's are designed to last for life. Have ALL engines and drivetrains interchangeable. Have body parts that are easy to take off and to mix and match. Basically, allow everyone the ability to make their homer'mobile.

Now I will try to explain my thoughts. I somewhat approached this idea on how the computer industry has designed theirs. If you make a set of universal ports, you are free to add what ever video card, sound card, or wireless card you want. Your pocket book is your limit. Now apply that to a car. Say you start with a solid chassis. I give you the Lotus Evora:

Light weight and relatively cheap to manufacture because of its modular components. You designed three chassis; a small chassis designed for two-door cars, a mid-sized chassis for four doors and a large chassis to handle more weight.

Now imagine your buyer has the ability to add either that monstrous 454 crate engine with a t56 or go the other direction with the "Volt" drivetrain. Consumers can pair these with their chassis to create a car that suits their exact wants. Then, after picking out their 'go', consumers can pick out their 'show'.

With only three chassis, there is a lot of room for imagination on body parts. Allow engineers to make bodies of all shapes and sizes. Don't say no. Why, because you can store the image/specs on a server without ever having to manufacture the part. Consumers can build their car the way they want it. Allow a consumer to make the car a four door hatch or two door sports.

These exterior components would come prefabricated and pre-painted. Your dealership (or you) can install an entire new body in a day or two and then you have a new car without having to buy a new car.

I hope you all get where I was going with this. Basically, I think our society (I wouldn't dare accuse any GRM'ers of this ) likes the idea of having a new car every 100k miles but thanks to good engineering, we have cars that can go 250k miles. My hope was that with 'better' engineering we can design a car (chassis) for life. Think modular components.

Before the Carapocolypse/Carmageddon I would have thought this to be radical. But hey, its a thought. I am sick and at home. What say you?

P.S. - I know there are a lot of holes in this. For instance there is a chassis but what about a frame, etc.

I think that this is what should be done as well, with one exception. Make a couple different front stubs and a couple different rear stubs and 4 interchangeable center sections.

FS1 - Front engine FWD/AWD

FS2 - Front engine RWD

FS3 - Rear engine RWD

MID1 - SWB No tunnel

MID2 - LWB No tunnel

MID3 - SWB With tunnel

MID4 - LWB With tunnel

RS1 - IRS no differential No power

RS2 - IRS with differential No power

RS3 - IRS for transverse power

Long wheel base units would result in 4/5 seat coupes, sedans, wagons or utes, Short wheel base units will result in 2 seat coupes, convertables or shooting brakes.

In other words, standardization.

Did GM take a kick at this with a "surfboard" fuel cell drive by wire platform? I forget the name.

A simpler way to cut costs both in production and in maintenance would be standardization of things like lights. The UK industry had this for years, thanks to their use of Lucas bits. Taillights, headlights, wiper motors - even wiring colours were standard. Changing the taillights of a car every few years is retarded, it drives up costs in a big way. You don't need custom lights to make a gorgeous car, some of the best lookers in the world used parts-bin lights. It's simple, but think about how it would streamline production and parts stocking if there were only a half-dozen options?

But anymore no one is interested in off the shelf stuff, it's 'boring'. Even among vehicles on the same platform/shell, there are differences to make one stand out. For instance, check out the headlights on a 300 touring:

and a 300C HEMI/SRT 8:

The general public wants this differentiation and the mfgs. respond by using common platforms to save costs and then put the money saved into gussying them up with gimcracks and whimmydiddles. So to a certain extent the OP's idea already exists.

If all headlights of said-x brand are interchangeable, you never have to worry about boring. Because you can pick out whatever type you want.

Scion has somewhat championed this idea now that I think about it. They allow for a large degree of 'customization' among their three chassis (exterior). I just want to expand that notion to the interior and drivetrain.

Because variety is the spice of life!

Think about it. My RX-7 and a C4 Corvette are both front engine/rear drive 2-seat sports cars, so in your plan they would share a chassis. Yet the Vette is a good 30% larger than my car. Hell, Miata, C6 Vette, and the 370Z would all have to be the same wheelbase/track width/etc as well.

P71 wrote: Because variety is the spice of life! Think about it. My RX-7 and a C4 Corvette are both front engine/rear drive 2-seat sports cars, so in your plan they would share a chassis. Yet the Vette is a good 30% larger than my car. Hell, Miata, C6 Vette, and the 370Z would all have to be the same wheelbase/track width/etc as well.

I agree with what you are saying. From our enthusiasts perspective, I want something a little different that I can claim is better.

From a national perspective, I believe most people wouldn't care. Albeit, I would.

P71 wrote: Because variety is the spice of life! Think about it. My RX-7 and a C4 Corvette are both front engine/rear drive 2-seat sports cars, so in your plan they would share a chassis. Yet the Vette is a good 30% larger than my car. Hell, Miata, C6 Vette, and the 370Z would all have to be the same wheelbase/track width/etc as well.

That is the rub, you "COULD", by changing wheel offsets and body width, change the size of the car with little issue.

Using my idea above lets say you used FS2+MID1+RS2 with a +35mm offset wheel and a "featherweight body package" to build a Miata like car OR FS2+MID2+RS2 with a +0 offset wheel and a 2 door coupe body package and build GTO type vehicle.

But then the car companies wouldn't sell as many cars cause you'd just fix 'em and keep 'em. There's no incentive to buy, Buy, BUY!

Yeah, Dell doesn't sell any computers either... they are modular as well.

carguy123 wrote: But then the car companies wouldn't sell as many cars cause you'd just fix 'em and keep 'em. There's no incentive to buy, Buy, BUY!

I was hoping someone would say this. Absolutely correct, BUT, they are going to have to cut a lot of people regardless. With a fresh base, start with engineers. Design the 'right' car(s) and build a car that is sustainable, not a mass production. Once you slowly roll out a car that you will keep for a while, they can charge more. That means they can finance the car longer. Longer finance equals more interest payments.

They can also make money off of licensing the rights to build aftermarket parts.

John Brown wrote: I think that this is what should be done as well, with one exception. Make a couple different front stubs and a couple different rear stubs and 4 interchangeable center sections. FS1 - Front engine FWD/AWD FS2 - Front engine RWD FS3 - Rear engine RWD MID1 - SWB No tunnel MID2 - LWB No tunnel MID3 - SWB With tunnel MID4 - LWB With tunnel RS1 - IRS no differential No power RS2 - IRS with differential No power RS3 - IRS for transverse power Long wheel base units would result in 4/5 seat coupes, sedans, wagons or utes, Short wheel base units will result in 2 seat coupes, convertables or shooting brakes.

Also to make this theory work, All electronics, fuel and/or battery storage and primary controls are included on the MID section. The steering would be electric assist and individual brake by wire master cylinders would control the calipers to reduce the need of replacing hydraulic hard lines every body/suspension move.

John Brown wrote:

John Brown wrote: I think that this is what should be done as well, with one exception. Make a couple different front stubs and a couple different rear stubs and 4 interchangeable center sections. FS1 - Front engine FWD/AWD FS2 - Front engine RWD FS3 - Rear engine RWD MID1 - SWB No tunnel MID2 - LWB No tunnel MID3 - SWB With tunnel MID4 - LWB With tunnel RS1 - IRS no differential No power RS2 - IRS with differential No power RS3 - IRS for transverse power Long wheel base units would result in 4/5 seat coupes, sedans, wagons or utes, Short wheel base units will result in 2 seat coupes, convertables or shooting brakes.

Also to make this theory work, All electronics, fuel and/or battery storage and primary controls are included on the MID section. The steering would be electric assist and individual brake by wire master cylinders would control the calipers to reduce the need of replacing hydraulic hard lines every body/suspension move.

I thought about tackling that in my OP but it is over my head how to engineer that. I figured the real brains could work that out. But, if it is modular, the connections can be designed to be the same. So in theory it should be a plug and play type of a situation.

Think about this...

You drive to an autocross in your AWD SWB Convertible remove the upper panels and install the F1 kit...

John Brown wrote: Think about this... You drive to an autocross in your AWD SWB Convertible remove the upper panels and install the F1 kit...

+a kajillion

Why bother with the body at all then?

The only problem I see is the feds. They change the rules too often and car manufactures would still be redesigning every few years to keep up with new regulations. It is probably just as easy for them to redesign the entire car as it is to redesign the front module for crash standards, or the engine and ecu for fuel/emission standards. The other thing is the only people who would keep one forever is people like us. The general public just wants a all new car every few years with the latest and greatest bells and whistles. Basically the same reason Dell still sells all new computers.

...and you can have any color, as long as its black,,,

Seriously, though, car companies already recycle alot between models. Sometimes though, it takes a new chassis to improve the car (better torsional rigidity, quietness, etc). Thinking that one modular chassis could be made to do all things is great, but you would have to isolate alot of issues in one single H frame there. That could work for some vehicles, but my guess is not all.

So what do you do if you want a Mac?

They call Obama a socialist already, imagine if he pushed this!!

In general, car companies sell cars... that's SELL. Whatever makes them sell more, the better for them. This would be good for the COUNTRY, not the car companies, big difference. I actually love the idea, but reality is a bitch!

Hell, if nothing else, they could at least standardize similar parts across manufacturers!!! I mean it is absolutely ridiculous that you need so many variations of what could be standard parts!!

So from a BMW M5 to a T bucket rod just remove a few panels and bolt on the T model ...... hmmmm

cool idea. maybe we should drive giant Lego cars that snap together?

I always liked that Adobe Car!!

aircooled wrote: So what do you do if you want a Mac? Hell, if nothing else, they could at least standardize similar parts across manufacturers!!! I mean it is absolutely ridiculous that you need so many variations of what could be standard parts!!

That is actually a decent idea. make standardized wheels/bolt patterns, standardized splindles/hubs/brake caliper mountings with several different calipers that could mount to that hub, along with a selection of standardized rotors. standardized alternators housings in which you could just change the field windings to change the out put of the alternator. standardized A/C compressors and P/S pumps. Or you could even make standardized steering racks with built in electric power assist. Heck, you could even make standardized ECMs, with each mfr just installing thier own program. Along with the standardized ECMs would come standardized sensors and wiring harness plugs. You could probably make a standardized auto trans for FWD, and annother for RWD with some shared internal parts, since the trans would be electronicly controlled they could still behave with different personalities for different models and mfrs. Like wise you could make a standardized manual trans for FWD with a final drive ratio that could be easily changed for use in different models. Speaking of FWD, make standard inner and outer joints for the axels. Following this formula the mfrs could make some distinctly different products that still share a lot of common parts

I know a lot of this idea seems strange. We all have gotten used to seeing new and different products to get us to buy. HappyAndy is right, just because we standardize most of the parts doesn't mean there won't be room for innovation. Take the LSx engines, same old technology that has been improved upon to create lots of variations for many different applications.

This idea can start small, like with standardizing the headlights, then the list that HappyAndy lays out. I do know something has to change in the industry. I love cars way too much to see the industry fail.

I am less concerned with the ancilliary pieces, because if done correctly they could be ripped out like body panels and use a "fashion front" with the real business underneath.

Using the HID or Optic globe spot bulbs you can install any shape clear cover in front of it. The lights are all the same and in the same spot but the body could be a box or a bullet, it wouldn't matter.