What's the point?

[nissanh]

I have a toyota car that is 20 years old with 225 K miles (4afe engine).
Recently I rebuild the head and now it is doing easy 38-40 MPG on highway! guess what.... there were no crank or cam sensors. It has TPS, vacuum, MAF and O2 sensors only.

Now look at the newer cars with 1.8 L engines with millions of sensors and still doing 35 MPG. How many times you have to take it to a dealer because of a bad sensor?

Why all these sensors when you really don't need them?

 

[shootmymime]

I just wrote a paper about this for school. if you want to read it (9 informative pages) send me a PM, i care not to share it publicly so people dont start arguing about things i said.

 

[Whitson Metalworks]

In a word, gooberment

 

[01KY4R]

You had me confused with the MPH when you obviously meant MPG. Not sure why all new cars have so many sensors. It seems like my Dads grand Cherokee is always having issues with them.

 

[LittleCaesar]

The dealer has to make money somehow for themselves and for the company whose product they sell. How else will they stay in business? Selling new cars? Not in this economy.

I like cars that have no MAF myself (utilize a MAP sensor only).Less is better for me.

 

[jtfitz90]

You raise a valid point. I have noticed on my wife's 2012 Kia, we've had to take that thing in more times for a stupid "Hill Start Assist" sensor, meanwhile my 4Runner has been running with a CEL for a bad charcoal canister for about 8 months now lol.

Sure do with my old '84 Chevy....At least that thing did't have so much crap to deal with.

 

[Stick Figure]

Emissions and safety. Until it becomes legal to shoot stupid people, we will all have to deal with it.

More people means more cars which means we can allow less pollution per car. That equals more sensors. More stupid people means more "accidents" (which usually aren't so much accidents as pre-occupied-ents). That forces safer cars, airbags add weight, wiring to airbags at weight, skid control computers add weight, the wiring for said computer, and sensors add weight etc etc. More weight = far less MPG .. ask the guys with armor! lol

 

[02SE]

Emissions and safety. Until it becomes legal to shoot stupid people, we will all have to deal with it.

More people means more cars which means we can allow less pollution per car. That equals more sensors. More stupid people means more "accidents" (which usually aren't so much accidents as pre-occupied-ents). That forces safer cars, airbags add weight, wiring to airbags at weight, skid control computers add weight, the wiring for said computer, and sensors add weight etc etc. More weight = far less MPG .. ask the guys with armor! lol

Yep.

A Corolla of today for example is bigger, heavier, has more power, lower emissions, and is safer due to all of the driver aids, and airbags, than the Corolla of 20 years ago.

 

[RussToy]

I remember my dad's old Chevy (mid 70's) got about 12mpg with a 350 and a carburetor. Then I bought a brand new 06' Chevy with the high tech 6.0L...fuel injected, God only knows how many sensors. I avg only 11mpg. What's wrong with that picture?

I have a buddy that still has a 1980 Chevy Chevette with a 4cyl diesel. It's got over 200,000 miles on it and still getting 45mpg! What the...???

 

[Ed_C]

I'm guessing you have a distributor,no need for crank and cam sensors since the ECU gets timing signals from the distributor. Multi-coil ignitions need to know cam and crank position to fire at the right time,and in the event of a misfire the ECU can determine which cylinder(s) is/are causing the problem by comparing the two sensors signals.

I could go on and explain what the other sensors do but I've got some laundry to wash and something alcoholic to drink ;-)

 

[Stick Figure]

I remember my dad's old Chevy (mid 70's) got about 12mpg with a 350 and a carburetor. Then I bought a brand new 06' Chevy with the high tech 6.0L...fuel injected, God only knows how many sensors. I avg only 11mpg. What's wrong with that picture?

go buy a 70s body and drop that 6.0 in it, and tell me what you get for mileage, just don't hit anything or depending on the body you buy try to take a corner. lol

 

[nissanh]

Yep.

A Corolla of today for example is bigger, heavier, has more power, lower emissions, and is safer due to all of the driver aids, and airbags, than the Corolla of 20 years ago.

Well.... I do not think so.... Cars produced now have no chassis that runs from the front to the rear, and more plastic than metal so it needs airbags to protect the occupants.

Ed_C: yes, it has a distributor. So you are right. Ed_C, I think you should enlighten all of us about these sensors when you are done with the laundry......

 

[02SE]

Well.... I do not think so.... Cars produced now have no chassis running from the front to the rear and more plastic than metal so it needs airbags to protect the occupants.

Well, you may not think so, but the fact is the 2013 Corolla is approximately 400 lbs heavier than the 1992 model.

1992 curb weight, 2390 lbs.: Toyota Corolla (E90) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2013 curb weight, 2800 lbs.: Toyota Corolla Performance & Specs click on weights and capacities.

 

[LittleCaesar]

+1 with StickFigure and 02SE. More copper and more sheathing adds up to more weight.

 

[ar.t4r]

Well.... I do not think so.... Cars produced now have no chassis that runs from the front to the rear, and more plastic than metal so it needs airbags to protect the occupants.

You have a gross misunderstanding of what makes for a safe car. A rigid metal frame is in fact more dangerous and is in more need of airbags.

a fun video to watch:
1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu crash test - YouTube

modern cars have a ton of requirements on them that are often at odds with each other. If a car company wanted to focus ONLY on mileage and throw safety and emissions out the window, you better believe you'd see some real crazy numbers. Just think of what a small diesel geo would get you without any diesel emissions laws!

You'd go far, but you'd be driving in acid rain.

 

[hrt4me]

I just wrote a paper about this for school. if you want to read it (9 informative pages) send me a PM, i care not to share it publicly so people dont start arguing about things i said.

I'm interested in what you wrote...

 

[theizzardking]

I'm interested in what you wrote...

x2:bluejump:

 

[Nelsonmd]

Yep.

A Corolla of today for example is bigger, heavier, has more power, lower emissions, and is safer due to all of the driver aids, and airbags, than the Corolla of 20 years ago.

Yeah, this is true of every single system in the vehicle. Everything on a modern car is more refined and more tightly controlled than its equivalent 20 years ago. They are also FAR more regulated by the government.

You have a gross misunderstanding of what makes for a safe car. A rigid metal frame is in fact more dangerous and is in more need of airbags.

a fun video to watch:
1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu crash test - YouTube

modern cars have a ton of requirements on them that are often at odds with each other. If a car company wanted to focus ONLY on mileage and throw safety and emissions out the window, you better believe you'd see some real crazy numbers. Just think of what a small diesel geo would get you without any diesel emissions laws!

You'd go far, but you'd be driving in acid rain.

Bingo. Survivability (of a vehicle occupant) is so much higher today than it has ever been. The vehicles take so much damage today because they are taking all the damage that used to be transferred into the occupants. The energy dissipation in a modern car wreck is light years different than what it was 20 years ago. People walk away from highway crashe with just scratches and maybe a few airbag burns.

Back in the day, it was probably safer to get ejected from the vehicle than to remain in it...

 

[I_bRAD]

I remember my dad's old Chevy (mid 70's) got about 12mpg with a 350 and a carburetor. Then I bought a brand new 06' Chevy with the high tech 6.0L...fuel injected, God only knows how many sensors. I avg only 11mpg. What's wrong with that picture?

And what's the power output on that new chevy with the same mileage compared to the old one? I bet you it's in the 2-3X area. Detune that new 6.0 to get 150hp and 175 ft-lbs and see where you're at.

 

[tee-bone]

Yep; it's a tradeoff between safety (which equates to weight), emissions, and power; with an additional factor being longevity.

Your current cars get nearly as good or better mileage, while going faster despite their higher weights; while not only polluting less off the showroom floor but being less likely to have unnoticed conditions that cause extra pollution over the entire life of the car.

I personally think they should build cars with the assumption that they will be used regularly a minimum of ten years and up to twenty; and that as a result we need to produce far fewer cars. However, I understand why car companies might not agree with that.