too much computerization/tech

[Sasquatch]

Anyone else here think they are putting too much computerization into cars these days? I mean, they are trying to get them to do all this stuff, yet they can't even get the basic mechanical stuff right, then they just heap on more problems with computers.

Just look at some of these recent thread titles and their content:


Big Brother is watching

Srs - Airbag Service Urgent

Message Center: "Start Inhibited, Try Again"

Computer Issue? Ghost? What is it??

Poll: Car maintenance: How much can we gain?

SRS Airbag Service Urgent

Speed Limiter on 2002 XC70?

Sway Links/Bushings Fail Fifth Time, Exhaust Question

Rear wheel bearings replacement

Spooked

Finding 12V behind dash?

Message Center: "Start Inhibited, Try Again"

If you were ever toiling over doing your own maintenance versus going to Jiffy Lube..

Throttle Body Tomorrow - anything I should know?

Power sensitive steering - opinions?

[tgrumaj]

I really wonder what we get out of all of it. Put the really great seats of the XC and a good dependable AWD system in a 240 wagon and I'd be happy. Simple 4 cyl engine, easy and inexpensive to work on, good solid suspension that ran and ran...no worry about ABS modules, ETM modules, hubs and sway bar links wearing out, antenna rings that die and leave you stranded....on and on.

[griso4r]

i think you're basically right, electronics simplified and improved a lot our cars, but the impression that we're shifting from a correct use to an abuse is quite strong. in other words too often the various electronics systems are used to correct structural problems of the cars. a classic example was the first model of the MB A class, there were huge problems of stability, clear indication that the original project was wrong, the solution was to install the Electronic Stability System instead of correcting the real structural problems. there are cars quite dangerous (obviously in particular situations) if driven with the stability control off, absolutely not acceptable from my side.
IMHO electronics is good as long as you respect at least two basic principles:
- is improving something and not correcting
- the quality of the components is adequate
ciao

[gibbons]

The XC's engine is about 153 cubic inches. That would have been laughable 30 years ago, but it cranks out over 200 horse power with ultra low emissions. The stoutly built motor in my Chevelle is 3 times as big, but "only" puts out about 500 horse power, 15% less efficient (power to displacement) than the XC motor. And its emissions barely pass EPA minimum standards.

The XC's efficiency (and obviously all modern engines) is due to the computer running everything, watching for knock, adjusting the amount of gas squirt from the injectors based on emissions and load, adjusting the spark timing, etc. Compared to my old Chevelle, these engines are magic.

I will take the potential computer issues any day if they also give me anti-lock brakes and other fun stuff like that. Just like I much prefer a word processor to hand writing a letter.

[Sasquatch]

...The XC's efficiency (and obviously all modern engines) is due to the computer running everything, watching for knock, adjusting the amount of gas squirt from the injectors based on emissions and load, adjusting the spark timing, etc. Compared to my old Chevelle, these engines are magic....

I'd say it has to do with multiple valves, head design, and a TURBOCHARGER doesn't hurt either. Of course, this technology also comes with a penalty of increased maintenance and often problems.

[Willy]

I really wonder what we get out of all of it. Put the really great seats of the XC and a good dependable AWD system in a 240 wagon and I'd be happy. Simple 4 cyl engine, easy and inexpensive to work on, good solid suspension that ran and ran...no worry about ABS modules, ETM modules, hubs and sway bar links wearing out, antenna rings that die and leave you stranded....on and on.

I wouldn't be happy with such a car. Good things of the past always tend to
get better in our minds. IMHO, the XC and a 240 can't be compared.
Perhaps, if your XC would suddenly behave like that good old 240, the opinion
would differ.
I know I would feel ripped off if someone swapped my XC for a 240, it was a
very good car, as was my 144 and 940, but the XC is by far the best one I had until now.
Also, the XC has almost 3 times as much power as my 144 had, yet it consumes
less fuel, the emission is probably inmeasurably less.
Willy

[gibbons]

I'd say it has to do with multiple valves, head design, and a TURBOCHARGER doesn't hurt either. Of course, this technology also comes with a penalty of increased maintenance and often problems.

Ah, good point! However, my Chevelle has cavernous head porting and cam with wild valve timing, I think it breathes pretty well above 3000 rpm, but the mechanical penalty of doing these mods for high end power is that it barely idles. The XC's computer changes valve timing for optimal power at all RPMs. Sure, the XC is turbo'ed, but it's a pretty tame boost. Lots of other manufactures get higher horsepower ratios without a turbo.

If my wife would let me, I would chuck the Chevelle's carbureted motor for a computer controlled, fuel injected, factory built high performance "crate" motor in a second. It would be a joy to throw away all my carb jets, vacuum enrichment valves, secondary opening cams, ignition advance weights, etc. The maintenance on a modern car is nothing compared to an older technology car.

I just love jumping in a modern car, starting it stone cold, and having it run perfectly.

[Sasquatch]

Nothing wrong with technology, as long as it SIMPLIFIES THINGS.

Heck, I think all cars and trucks would benefit from variable valve timing, variable length intake runners, etc.

ABS is great for people who don't know how to drive, as long as it ISN'T FAULTY.

And of course, fuel injection is way better than carbs; again, as long as IT WORKS RIGHT.


What I'm against are all the faulty control systems on top of cheap mechanical parts. I'd rather crank my windows than replace a $200-500 window controller.

The last thing I want is to have a computer shutting systems down on me while on vacation, or reporting my behavior to BIG BROTHER. I already have a mother, thank you very much.

[wgriswold]

I think that we are taklking about two things. One is the appropriate use of technology to add value to the car. The other is the use of technology that adds no value or whatever value there is added is negated by the frustration and cost of dealing with problems associated with the technology. I think that the engineers get a powerful, outdated chip almost for free, and use only a portion of it for its intended purpose. Then with lots of power left over they let their imaginations run wild and we get things that we didn't know we want and that cause lots of breakdowns and frustration. Of course, each of us will draw the line in a different place.

For me it is wonderful to go out on a cold winter day and start the car and immediately drive off. Much better that waiting for it to warm up and be driveable. In the other class is the anti-theft key. Causes a lot of trouble and I suspect that the total saved in cars not stolen is less than the added cost of providing it and servicing it. Do I really need or want to pay for an automatic interval wiper feature? Electric windows are in the gray area for me. I like them, but could live without them. Mine rattle because of the automatic down feature and that is annoying and of course when they break they are expensive to fix.

So, if I could have a 244 with selected features (modern four cylinder engine, current seats, and AWD) I think that I would like it. As I type this I am realizing that what I really want is a less sophisticated more reliable XC70.

[Sasquatch]

Yes, keep all that is good, and toss the unreliable. It is called focus.

Instead of giving total quality, they fluff the crap over with more crap and things just get confusing. Exactly what they wanted. What they need to do is put in good brakes, good suspension, good transmission, and SIMPLE electronics. This doesn't HAVE to be expensive you know, and the bonus is the reputation would IMPROVE as a result.

Simplify, simplify, simplify.

[John@CdnRockies]

I wouldn't want to fly in a plane that wasn't computer controlled and the same thing holds for my car. When urgent evasive action is required, it's a real comfort to leave the wheels in the hands of a robot!

Yes, components will break and are costly to repair. However, the convenience, improved safety and daily running reliability is something that I am willing to pay for in a higher end vehicle. I remember owning rough idling (solved by a manual choke!) cars which required a spring and winter tune-up. Basic transportation perhaps, but I'll take my heated seats, ABS/DSTC equipped rig any day.

Given the abusive operating environment, I am continually impressed with just how well our automotive electrical systems work.

John

[barrysharp]

I have no issues with Volvo deploying software and hardware (i.e., computers and networking) to control comfort features and such things as car's engine, transmission, headlights, suspension, radio, heated seats, climate cotrol, auto dimming mirror, seat positions, alarm systems and ABS operations. However I would add that this architecture must

1. be reliable with mean time between failures approaching double digit years

2. be understandable: meaning when failures do occur the built-in systems must log sufficient data for local technicians to understand what went wrong. I emphasis here 'local technicians' and the need to call home(Sweden) should be unecessary. The complex computer and networking in the Volvo today exc eeds the skill levels of most local technicians. They have a cook book to use for diagnosis which only takes them so far with finding root causes of failures. It could be that Volvo in Sweden has but one software/hardware engineer that really understands a particular system component or it could be that the original engineer who designed the system has retired, resigned or (for heavens sake) is asleep in bed when needed. Does 'dusty decks' mean anything to you ?

3. be value add: for example, DTSC, ECU to optimise fuel economy and performance when needed by driver and ABS are value add IMO... but they must meet requirements 1) and 2).

4. be safe: does not compromise the safety of the car and its occupants.

Volvo builds cars for all countries (well at least many countries, if not all) which have different rules and regulations. Volvo obviously has to deliver an affordable car and will design the basic car to accommodate all of this. The computers and software allow them to customize the car for some of these different rules and regulations: such as DRL, kph vs. mph and Deg C vs. Deg F. It's the one shoe fits all approach to keep costs down.

I believe the auto manufacturers have deployed technology that has leaped ahead of the peoples' skills in the field - ie the local technicians. My '03 XC70 car is now on its 4th stop at the service dept to have an electrical problem resolved that has caused the whole dash panel to black out, key remotes stop working, plus a host of other associated but smaller non-safety related electrical problems. I had a MY2000 Volvo S80 T6 which would cut its engine dead when coming off freeways and turning right, presenting me with a very dangerous situation with ABS, power steering and power assisted brakes being suddenly unavailable to me. Volvo was not able to figure out why the car did this and after the 3rd occurrence of this I gave them the car to keep in exchange for another - guess what I selected - yes you have it right - a MY2003 XC70.

I believe severe electrical issues do arise and because they are as a result of a complex architecture of computers and networking they can be very difficult to resolve. I also believe the worst cases of these are rare.

Just about every Volvo owner I've spoken with over the past several years has experienced some form of weird electrical problem in their cars.

Someone mentioned airplanes being controlled by computers. THis is true but the airplanes are designed with in most cases triple redundancy meaning that two failures can occur and the plane can still fly or be flown safely. Cars don't have this type of redundancy other than say in the braking system.

A four engine aicraft is designed to be able to fly on two engines (for a limited period), a two engine aircraft is designed to fly with just one, but a single engine plane can only glide after it loses an engine.

[barrysharp]

I might add I've owned my '86 Volvo 745 Turbo diesel for 20 yrs (purchased new) and have had no baffling electrical problems other than my electric roof motor's contacts giving out - and I was able to convert this back to manual operation. :D

This tells me Volvo has adopted new technology at the expense in money and time from its customer base (well at least some of us). I would also suggest that warranty work has increased that is eating away at their bottom line.

I'm of the opinion I will never purchase another Volvo - but will lease my future cars (Volvo or other) for no more than 3-4 years depending on the mileage I expect to drive during the lease period.

[tgrumaj]

Willy that may be you, but for me I was fine with the performance (and much better gas milage) of the 240 so HP and accelleration isn't a real issue for me. I like the much more comfortable seats of the XC and I like having AWD but wish it were the Haldex and not VC. With those two things changed I'd have a dependable, great milage (26mpg vs. my XC at 20 - I do mostly city driving) and the AWD car I wanted via the XC. I've only had the XC for two years and had the 89 240 for 12 and traded it with about 180k miles. I agree in it's "native" state I wouldn't want it back...the saggy cloth seats and performance in winter snow and ice leave much to desire, but...with those two things changed (and maybe avoiding the dreaded "240 butt sag" syndrome" via more robust rear suspension) I would take a 240 wagon. I even like the styling (or lack of styling depending on your taste) better.
Bottom line like Walt, I want a less sophisticated, more dependable XC and am willing to give up performance and styling (given taste) to get it.

I might add that a year ago when my wife was looking for a car we almost bought a 1993 240 that had only 35,000 miles and was virutally mint. It was really owned by the perverbal old lady who drove it lightly and was maintined by my Indy mechanic so he know it's history. The only issue was it was black with a black interior something my wife hates so we wound up with a white car with a tan interior...the Acura. I still regret not getting that car....women.

[Raynald]

This doesn't HAVE to be expensive you know, and the bonus is the reputation would IMPROVE as a result. Simplify, simplify, simplify.I agree with that. I think we're collectively paying the price for those new technologies. I remember paying $4,000 (USD or CAD, whatever) for my first home video camera and recorder back in the late '70s and $5,000 for a laser printer in '86 (my employer paid for that one...) that needed more delicate care and maintenance than DaVinci's Mona Lisa! :D

Today's car are quicker, safer, more comfortable and, yes, more reliable than ever. Nobody can deny that. However, I think we are still in the stone age of computer technology, thus making those electronic things somewhat expensive and undeniably difficult to maintain.

This was probably the case for car mechanical in the early years. I remember my late father talking about some family member, a great great uncle who was a mechanic and bought a brand new 1928 Buick (or was it a 1908? not sure about that...) on which he had to had oil, remove and clean spark plugs every day and repair or change tires almost weekly... for a car he barely used.

Guys... Maybe we're all pionneers in a new era! :D

See you in 100 years in an hydrogen powered self-filling, self-programming, self-diagnosing, self-repairing intelligent... and most likely, more expensive car! :eek: ;) :D

[bbbuzzy]

Hi,

While I agree that the multiple layers of electrons,sensors,and computers complicates the normal operation of a car, many enjoy the improvements in comfort,saftey,efficiency,etc. It's often only when the electronics become unreliable that we question their value. Volvo has a history of having electrical gremlins and many posters here have confirmed this (ECM being the biggest screw up). However, take a look at Lexus or Acura. Lots of electronics, little problems. Volvo just didn't do it right. Blame the manufacturer, not the component. That being said, I love my '05 XC70. No problems so far. Keeping the fingers crossed. Ciao.

[Sasquatch]

Good points everyone. Keep them coming.

How about this:

Electrical gremlins through the years:

Triumph Spitfire: 1960's
Audi: 1970's
Fiat: 1980's
Audi: 1990's
Volvo: 2000's

[Willy]

Didn't know that Fiat had gremlins *only* in the 1980's :D
About Volvo: the problems are fact, but as has been discussed before, only
few memebers post to say that all is ok!
I do support Raynalds (and others) view, but I think his bottom line
holds the thruth/future. I do believe cars keep getting better all the time and in
most repects, but not always without growing pains (indeed often paid for by the customer)
Willy

[DaveyB45]

I Think Volvo Drop The Quality Standard Compared To Older Models.
Yes Lots Of Electronic Goodies,, But To Many.....
Trans Is Acting Up,,,replaced The Bearings,,,,cruise Control,,, Steering Leaks,,,, Sway Links Are Noisy And Loose,,,,all With Just 37000 Miles,,,,mostly Highway Miles,,,,i Have Lost Convidence With This Ride,,,,warranty Is About To Run Out In December,,,dont Think I Want To Chance It And Have To Replace Trans Or More Bearings,,,
Nice Concept Vehicle,,,just To Many Unusual Problems....

Going Subaru,,,,awd Simple Engine Design,,,manual Trans,,,,

Its Called Kiss,,,,kept It Simple Stupid

[Sasquatch]

Willy, I know, Fiat covered lots of years, but I needed one to fill in that slot, so I used them. :-)

Davey, I forgot about all the bearing issues.

[Sasquatch]

Yet another example:


error code displayed.
...
I have asked Volvo dealer and also Volvo themselves .. but no-one can supply a Fault Code table....

I have had the misfortune to have had to change the throttle computer and also another computer bit (http://www.volvoxc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7754)

[Sasquatch]

Car died, had software update (http://www.v70xc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8782)

[griso4r]

I think it’s also a matter of components. I had a discussion few years ago with an electronic engineer who told me there is a rating for the quality of this components from 1 to 10, the 10 represents the maximum in quality and reliability (and cost of course). The automotive industry uses 2-3 and this could be the cause of many problems on the cars. Is there someone who can confirm this? ciao

[Neil R]

Thought it might add something to include a simple list of the actual Control Modules (CMs) etc:

Brake CM
SRS
Engine CM
Audio Module
Centre CM
Driver Info Module
Driver Door Module
Climate CM
Passenger Door Module
Front Seat Module
Rear Electronic Module
Steering Wheel Module
Upper Electronic Module

I understand the above generally networkrd by both a high speed and low speed databus.

All getting way too complex IMHO!

Neil

[Neil R]

Oops, given my recent headaches I should have also remembered this one:

Transmission CM

[Tyrant11429]

I like the computer tech, yeah its more maintance and money, but the safety features are a lot safer, not only that the comps operate with everything else to make operating the car easier, telling you when to service etc( good for woman or ppl who don't know much about cars)

[Sasquatch]

... computer tech, yeah its more maintance and money, but the safety features are a lot safer, not only that the comps operate with everything else to make operating the car easier, telling you ...

... or not.

[howardc64]

As noted, the operating efficiency from computer control in modern cars is awesome.

But the downside is that unlike mechanical controls which almost every car person understands, computer controls = invisible control logic. So the fix to problems take a lot longer because only very few people who knows the software logic can work on it.

European premium brands also have to push more advanced computer controls to justify their premium value compared with Hondas and Toyotas which often stick with older tech longer for cost + reliability reasons.

It seems Volvo's software team got caught in this feature advancement. Looking at 2 key software updates (ETM + TCM). Both hardware are components made by outside vendors. But Volvo appears to be doing the software. So how well did they understand the hardware to program it? In The ETM case, they probably made the software too conservative and reduced performance at the slightest hint of fault. I would guess the new software probably statistical ignore eractic position readings from 1 or 2 swiper fingers on the ETM if the others were consistent. On the TCM, they completely changed the shift + gear lockup profile on my 01 V70 T5 on the new software (a lot better performance). Again, showing they are learning how to program the given hardware.

So computer control is good. Just wish Volvo's software/hardware control experience evolves fast enough to keep up with the pace of their feature advancement.