Ask the Car People.SM


Is it time for automakers to get the fat out? - READ ONLY

52 messages,  Last post on Sep 05, 2008 at 9:44 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives Forum.

What is this discussion about? Fuel Efficiency (MPG), Automotive News, Future Vehicle

Messages Page 6 of 6

#46 of 52 Re: Modular construction? [kernick] by ronsmith38

Sep 04, 2008 (10:03 am)

Replying to: kernick (Sep 04, 2008 9:56 am)
A coworker of mine did just that 25 years ago. He had a pickup and added a cap, then bolted in seats (and belts) from a junk yard as his family grew!

#47 of 52 Re: Modular construction? [kernick] by andre1969

Sep 04, 2008 (10:15 am)

Replying to: kernick (Sep 04, 2008 9:56 am)
I think the biggest problem is that just the modularity is going to add weight. Instead of one big component, you have two smaller components that both need to be able to stand on their own without falling apart. Then there's the added weight of whatever keeps the two components joined together.
 
Another problem is picking the correct-sized engine. Pick an engine that's adequate for just the main component, then once you hook up the secondary part it's going to be too much weight for it. In contrast, pick an engine that can move the whole contraption, and when you're just using the main component, you have an oversized engine that's wasting fuel.

#48 of 52 Re: Modular construction? [andre1969] by nortsr1

Sep 04, 2008 (11:35 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Sep 04, 2008 10:15 am)
I also beieve there would be a safety factor involved as far as passing our tough safety standards.

#49 of 52 Re: Modular construction? [andre1969] by lemmer

Sep 04, 2008 (1:19 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Sep 04, 2008 10:15 am)
Does anybody remember the Nissan Pulsar with the modular back? That went over like a lead balloon.

#50 of 52 Re: Modular construction? [lemmer] by michaell

Sep 04, 2008 (2:30 pm)

Replying to: lemmer (Sep 04, 2008 1:19 pm)
Funny you should mention that! There is a picture of one in the "Mystery Car Pictures" discussion - with the SportBack attached.

#51 of 52 Re: Modular construction? [andre1969] by kernick

Sep 05, 2008 (9:33 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Sep 04, 2008 10:15 am)
Instead of one big component, you have two smaller components that both need to be able to stand on their own without falling apart.
 
Not really; think of the rear add-on section as a trailer which doesn't move on its own. The drive section and the add-on could interlock similar to a trailer on a trailer hitch, but with 2 balls so it would stay linear.
 
Pick an engine that's adequate for just the main component, then once you hook up the secondary part it's going to be too much weight for it.
 
Trains and those double tractor-trailers can be designed to carry vary loads, so this isn't rocket science. So you would oversize the engine a little for the drive section making it sporty, so it is adequate with the add-on. Or as I said you could have electric motor drive recharging from the engine in the rear wheels.

#52 of 52 Re: Modular construction? [kernick] by andre1969

Sep 05, 2008 (9:44 am)

Replying to: kernick (Sep 05, 2008 9:33 am)
Trains and those double tractor-trailers can be designed to carry vary loads, so this isn't rocket science. So you would oversize the engine a little for the drive section making it sporty, so it is adequate with the add-on. Or as I said you could have electric motor drive recharging from the engine in the rear wheels.
 
They also make truck tractors and railroad locomotives with varying amounts of power, mated to the task at hand. You're not going to use a rig designed to haul, say, 10 tons, to move a 40 ton load. And with trains, when the load gets too long, they have the option of adding another locomotive.

Messages Page 6 of 6

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement