Would this work? - Saving the Auto Industry content

Get rid of corrosion protection. People used to buy a car every few years because they had to. Nobody cared about care lasting for a million miles because they had rotted away long before then. Now with minimal maintainance even the biggest piece of garbage will last for ever, and if it is bought with few options you don't even get annoying electrical problems to swear at. Build them from spit and cardboard, lower the price accordingly and you will have a never ending stream of customers once again.

Excuse the crude example but like this:

From CARS

I should draw up an official document and send it up the ladder. I really do think "modularism" and standardization would help the industry a lot.

P71 wrote: Why bother with the body at all then?

It snows in Michigan, and the F1 kit adds aero, yo!

I like the idea, and think it would serve the industry very well.

Problem is, it didn't. The idea is as old as the auto industry. Ford did it in the early 1900's. Look how long the Chevy small block, in it's relatively unadulterated form remained the workhorse of GM. For over 40 years you could go into a parts store and ask for a Chevy alternator or a Ford water pump and have almost universal fitment.

1951-1954 Hudson Hornet. Winningest car in NASCAR history. But it was built on a unibody, and couldn't therefore make major design changes cost effectively to meet the desires of the market. Died a sudden death because buyers wanted something totally different every year.

Manufacturers figured out a long time ago that they needed to sell stuff. That means having lots of stuff to sell (including non-standardized parts).

Of course, there are some manufacturers with different plans. Subaru had essentially 2 chassis for a very long time (before they thought they could compete with SUV's- hah!)

The relationship between the wheelbase and the driver location has a lot to do with the look of the car. Might hurt the idea. For example- a Datsun Z has a REALLY long hood, and the driver's seating position is ALMOST AT the REAR wheels. That configuration wouldn't work for very many cars, but gave the car beautiful proportions for a sports car.

I'm not sure the large manufacturers are ready to get out of the parts business or the planned obsolescence business.

SVreX wrote: I'm not sure the large manufacturers are ready to get out of the parts business or the planned obsolescence business.

Are they ready to be out of business?

The reason we dare to think outside of the box is that we do not want to be buried in one.

The point of this conversation was more along the lines of creating fewer chassis with more parts that could be expandable or upgradeable.

Thanks for the insight SVreX. It is good to know some history into the subject. I guess with my thought, the consumer would get something different every year or could if they want. By designing a car on solid platform you can change any component when you want. I am beginning to see some holes that are inescapable. More thought on this subject is necessary.

Like I said, I like the idea. I would very much like to see the world work this way.

Toyman01 wrote: 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.

This is what killed the Isuzu Rodeo, Axiom and Trooper. When the 98-up Rodeo and the 2001-up Axiom were designed, there was a set of light truck/SUV crash standards in place which were supposed to be good through around 2008-2010. That's a long time and it's possible to recoup the cost of the engineering and tooling for a new vehicle over that kind of time. So then the Feds changed the rollover crash standards in 2003 in response to some media sensationalism about SUV rollovers to be effective 2006. GM owned a big chunk of AIMI (American Isuzu) and their midsize SUV manager had been trying to kill internal competition for the Blazer/Jimmy for years and he seized this as a perfect opportunity to kill those two off. Isuzu had their own successful light truck (D Max) and also a Trooper replacement in the works overseas but the market was not deemed strong enough to do the crash testing etc necessary to bring those over here. As a temporary sop to AIMI, they gave them the Ascender (rebadged Trailblazer) as a replacement for the Trooper. No one wanted a rebadged Trailblazer, they wanted a Trooper. Sales plummeted. Bye bye Isuzu light trucks.

I liked the Assender

Shopping the Evora Chassis

Evidence the idea might work?

I've been thinking for a while that Lincoln would be an ideal candidate for an Evora type car.

With ecoboost engines (both 6 & 8 cylinders), such a car could compete with the XLR, 6 series, or Mercedes SL. They need something like that.

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

That was the GM Hy-wire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Hy-wire

NAAAA it would never work...it makes too much sense We can't even make all 220 volt outlets/plugs the same.

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

Thought I would chime in here....AFAIK All Dells are less than 100% upgradeable. I've never seen a Dell desktop with a common, replaceable motherboard for instance. Usually the mobo, heatsink and PSU (at least in shape, they usually use standard connectors) are proprietary. This severely limits how far you can upgrade the system. IBM does the same thing, so does HP, and of course non-upgradeability is an inherent problem with all laptops.

4eyes wrote: NAAAA it would never work...it makes too much sense We can't even make all 220 volt outlets/plugs the same.

Actually there is a standard electric car plug now:

http://www.physorg.com/news159365523.html