Key fob costs over a hundred dollars

Page 1 of 3  
Those chip controlled ignition switches in the new car will set you back a bundle if you lose the remote key fob. At least $100 because its about $60
for the charm and $40 for the electronic programming.
God forbid if the electronic controlled switch itself goes bad when you try to start the engine to drive out of Death Valley after a picnic in the desert. You will need divine intervention because there is no way on Earth you will get that car going, no matter how many PhDs you have in automotive technology (the term, auto mechanics has gone out of fashion).
Here's my thesis: I believe a car can be built using simple conventional systems (mechanical fuel injection, electro-mechanical ignition, non-electronic transmission), totally devoid of active computers and still pass smog laws and OBD II. This car would be user and mechanic friendly. Modular electronics, such as a discrete a-c generator control and selective Kettering-CD ignition would make diagnosis and repair literally child's play. The only computer would be the law mandated OBD II but it would be in diagnostic mode only, not necessary for drive train functions.
And I don't need memory seats, electronic windows & door locks, automatic headlamps, etc. ad infinitum, either. Just a car that gets me from point A to point B.
There is ample reason to build such a car. In the news this week, we learned 1000 U.S. made trucks have been given to the new Iraqi government's police forces. It was stated Iraqi auto mechanics are incapable of maintaining these highly computerized trucks. Not only is our tax money wasted, but the export market is nill because the word has got around, you buy a $30,000 American truck, you can't fix it and its soon on the junk pile keeping company with Yugos.
There is every reason to believe a conventional car would last longer and be cheaper in the long run than 2007 models that have more computers in them than the Saturn Moon Rocket. A conventional machine, easy to fix would also sell broadly in the export market, but we don't make any such animal. Shame on us.
For those of you who prefer, a complex, impossible to fix car, just go buy a Mercedes Benz and leave the rest of us out of the nightmare modern cars have become.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George Orwell wrote:

There is no way you can achieve modern emissions compliance in the US without real-time closed loop control of mixture. You really don't know what you are talking about.

India's Tata Motors probably makes something more suitable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<snip>
Nomen, are you posting from a new account? I wish you'd stick to just one, so you'd stay killfiled.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Based on the recent Consumer Reports Annual Report edition few will be buying a troublesome Mercedes if they have any brains.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Agreed on all points in the replies!
wrote:

-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Most people don't purchase a MB for reliability but rather for status.
Ken
--
"Now Phoebe Snow direct can go
from thirty-third to Buffalo.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True and what a price they pay. >:)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Especially since many Mercedes Benz cars are used for taxis in Europe, so much for status. Roy
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe they get a break in taxes, which reflects in purchase price, in some parts of Europe, when used as taxis... Just the same as if you buy a business coupe which is quite different from a regular 4-5 passenger car.
I think Mercedes has made some of the most beautiful sports and sporty cars. BUT, the expense and lack of reliability does not endear them to me. And they are said to be a bitch on ice.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Who the hell trusts Consumer Reports these days?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:58:39 -0400, "KokomoKid"

Oh I don't know about that. While camping last summer, a young couple next to us had a 1948 Chevrolet. This had a 230 CID striaght six in it. Total plain-jane. Now I cannot speak for its actual emission values, but I can tell you the exhause did not "stink" like most of the cars in the 70's and 80's did!
Oh, and that 1948 Chev got about 20 MPG city, and 27 MPG highway.
I run a 2002 Dodge Grand Caravan with the 3.3 V6. I get about 18 MPG city, and 27 on the highway with a good tail-wind.
Somewhere, somehow, MPG and emmissions have to be connected. And it makes me SICK that it appears despite many so-called "improvements" in design, we really are not much farther ahead than in 1948. Yes, todays vehicles are more SAFE, but they get no better mileage as such. It looks to me as though a lot of the mileage has been gained by making smaller engines! Lots of cars have 1500 CC engines now compared with 5.7 litre engines (5700 CC) (350/351 CID) of the past.
The only thing that has changed is that the oil companies are making one hell of a lot more profit at our expense these days than they did in 1948.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
NewMan wrote:

Not sticking up for the earl companies, but actually the price of gas has gone down over the years as the percentage of income.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

An old engine with fragile crank bearing lubrication. All the old ones stink, I can tell if one is ahead of me.

Anyone I knew got 21-23 imperial MPG on the highway. Several in my family had that fragile engine in Chevs. Has fuel improved since then?

That's about right. After all it's a heavy vehicle with lots of wind resistance.

My LH 3.3L smokes (bad term here!) similar sized cars of the past (50s/60s) for MPG. About 50% more MPG.
It is even much better than the 200cu in ChevII stick shift I had and it was very good, but a smaller car.

Fuel went up here this week. I wouldn't be surprised if it's up 50% over the next year. Demand is driving prices. One good thing is the oil companies will have enough cash to develop and deliver much more expensive oil sources, else we would run out of oil.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well if it is not in proper running condition and properly tuned up maybe. I used to have a 1968 Nova with a 250 CID engine, and it was solid as a rock - nothing "fragile" about it. Once I converted to a manual choke, I could start a 40 below NO problem.

Since 2005???

Ummm.... I used to have a 1994 Grand Caravan that was a LOT less aerodymanic than my 2002. The 1994, with 3.3 engine, used to get about 22 MPG in the city, and 32 MPG on the highway. I was VERY surpprized when I got a newer, supposedly much more "advanced" model - with the same engine - only to discover the nasty mileage hit! What kind of crap is THAT!

Well you have to be careful with that statement. A similar sized car from the 50's and 60's would likely have a V8 in it. In which case the displacement would have been close to double. That is, the engine displacement would have likely been 302 (5.0 Litre) to 455 (7.5 Litre). So, yes, with a 3.3 you should EXPECT to get "50 %" better gas mileage. This is NOT due to improvements in engine design, or engine management. This IS because you are running a smaller engine!
230 CID is approximately 3.8 Litres. I am running a 2002 model year 3.3 with advanced computerized engine management. That 1948 230 CID in a WAY heavier vehicle with a carberator is getting slightly better mileage than I am in my 2002 mini-van.
Perhaps I should have purchased a van with a 3.8 Liter engine then???

Reminds me of when we switched to 2 Liter bottles for pop here in Canada. at the time, a 26 Oz bottle of pop (750 ml) was about 59 cents. When 2 litre came out, they were $3.59. By straight math, the 2 litre bottles should have been no more than $1.80. But WE THE CONSUMER were bing punished and made to pay for the transistion.
Now, long after the transition, "No Name" pop in a 2.0 litre bottle goes for 89 cents, and name brand for $1.25 at a discount grocery store.
SO by that analogy, the oil companies are ripping us off totally so they can use OUR money to fun the development and deployment of future reserves and alternate fuels, in order ot protect their own grossly obscene profits.
Yes, I have a very clear picture of it now. The oil companies are NOT doing us any favours, believe me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:32:49 -0700, NewMan

The Chevy 230 - 235 "Stovebolt Six" was NOT a fragile engine - far from it. Probably why Toyota bought the design and the tooling from GM, made a few slight changes to Metrify the fittings, and they're *still* building it as the F Motor. F and 2F (4.2L), 3F-E (4.0L). Through the entire run of the LandCruiser.

The fuel is improved, but if they add oxygenates the BTU per gallon is lower. Where you get the big efficiency gains is through EFI instead of carburetion.
And then you lose that efficiency when you crap the engine up with PCV, and EGR, and EEC, and lots of power accessories, and electric cooling fans, and air conditioning, and high-powered lighting systems, and big stereos, and GPS and cellular...
--<< Bruce >>--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hate to point this out, but EGR and PCV cause no loss in performance. How can they, they require no energy input to make them function. Electric cooling fans save fuel because they only run when needed. Same with the new electric power steering, why run a pump if you don't have to?
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
i never saw a nova not dogtrack going straight down a road
NewMan wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Seems like a bit of a contradiction......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The only complaint I ever had with my old Nova was the suspension. There was a fair amount of "pitch & roll" in my 1968. So for - at the time in the early 80s - about $600 CDN, I had a sway bar put in the front and rear, and KYB gas shocks all-way around.
No more pitch & roll, and after a PROPER wheel alignment (NOT a "canadian tire" wheel alignment) drove straight as an arrow, and cornered like a Datsun 510! :)
That was a good solid car that was easy to work on and CHEAP to sevice.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tailpipe emissions and fuel consumption are two different things.
Sadly, with the state of the art today, we are saddled with the spectre of increased fuel consuimption in order to "feed" those devices that help cleanse the exhaust stream of our cars...
That 48 Chev was designed and built in a era that fed todays pollution woes....
As for George - a remote keyless entry fob is $49CA at our store and (providing anyone can read simple words) the instructions to program the fob are printed in the owners manual.
Someone is going to chime in and say "but the air is fine where I live...". And that may well be true. But, if the garbage truck didn't stop by once a week, it would take long for your front yard to fill up with trash bags. Since there is no garbage guy picking up exhaust emissions, it falls to the car to make as few emissions as possible....
Myopia as a way of life.... interesting concept....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.