View Poll Results: Like or Dislike computers on Vehicles and Why
I like OBD Computers
23
71.88%
I don't like OBD Computers
1
3.13%
Six in one and half a Dozen in the Other
8
25.00%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll
Computer or No and Why?
Logistics Pro
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,881
Likes: 84
From: Wake Forest, NC
Reliable?? I wouldn't use releiable. I had a lot of reliable cars, most were non computer car's, maybe more effiecent. That would be an interesting spread sheet, the cost per mile of a non computer vehicle verses a newer vehicle excluding fuel, and how long they ran without what would be considered normal maintanace, and what effect did the computer had on that maintanace or when it was performed.
Carb'd non-electronic engines and cars could be very efficient, but you had to tweak them constantly (relatively speaking) to adjust for changing conditions and wear of parts.
Computer controlled feedback engines have the ability to adjust for a wide range of conditions.
Other powertrain items as well. I'm sure the torqueshift couldn't work without a computer, and it has proven to be a good transmission.
Thread Starter
|
Post Fiend
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,626
Likes: 7
From: Plano TX and Brentwood TN
Well for sure, tow/haul mode wouldn't work without computers.
Cargo Master
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 4
From: Redford, Mi.
Well were back to reliable/ or efficient, a play on words? I have had very reliable cars, I now have a very reliable truck, but I don't know that they are more reliable than the days of old. They are more efficient, I think we all agree on that, drivetrain components are more reliable>> but is it because of the computer or the technology in the drivetrain itself. I understand your point of the torqueshift but the C6 or Turbo 400 were good too. Now they didn't operate like the transmissions of today but they were very reliable.
Maybe I'm to old to give into that computers make vehicles more reliable than cars without. I've worked on and drove too many older cars that were reliable that I could have put up against many a computerized car that was not, and there are many. But is it the fault of the computer or the technology and workmanship in the vehicle itself.
Maybe I'm to old to give into that computers make vehicles more reliable than cars without. I've worked on and drove too many older cars that were reliable that I could have put up against many a computerized car that was not, and there are many. But is it the fault of the computer or the technology and workmanship in the vehicle itself.
Thread Starter
|
Post Fiend
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,626
Likes: 7
From: Plano TX and Brentwood TN
I think I'm on the reverse end of the spectrum from you. I have only known computerized ones, now OBD-I wasn't a very sophisticated computer, but nonetheless it was a computer that did the very basics of what we have now.
I don't think I've ever wrenched on a non-computer vehicle, driven a few but not wrenched. I think I would be a little nervous without having the computer to eliminate some things, just not that mechanical minded I guess.
Cargo Master
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 4
From: Redford, Mi.
BTW if your ever up north this way stop by, I have a 65 442 convertible with the frame in two pieces, I can start your old school lessons on that.
Logistics Pro
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,881
Likes: 84
From: Wake Forest, NC
Of course for things like that, but I'm talking more basically on a functional level. Mark has mentioned that the 2-3? shift I think is a swap shift and has to occur in .30 seconds? and I doubt that the monitoring and adjustment of that shift, as well as the adaptability of the rest of the transmission would be possible without a computer controller. Just too much going on to do it mechanically.
Logistics Pro
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,881
Likes: 84
From: Wake Forest, NC
Well were back to reliable/ or efficient, a play on words? I have had very reliable cars, I now have a very reliable truck, but I don't know that they are more reliable than the days of old. They are more efficient, I think we all agree on that, drivetrain components are more reliable>> but is it because of the computer or the technology in the drivetrain itself. I understand your point of the torqueshift but the C6 or Turbo 400 were good too. Now they didn't operate like the transmissions of today but they were very reliable.
Maybe I'm to old to give into that computers make vehicles more reliable than cars without. I've worked on and drove too many older cars that were reliable that I could have put up against many a computerized car that was not, and there are many. But is it the fault of the computer or the technology and workmanship in the vehicle itself.
Maybe I'm to old to give into that computers make vehicles more reliable than cars without. I've worked on and drove too many older cars that were reliable that I could have put up against many a computerized car that was not, and there are many. But is it the fault of the computer or the technology and workmanship in the vehicle itself.
Your right it is very difficult to discern between reliable for the computer control and better engineering. However, I think a large part of today's long term reliability is the computers ability to adapt to changing conditions over a long time period. Cars from the true non-computer days couldn't go 100k miles without adjustments. And a large part of that efficiency improvement is being able to use lighter parts that are better managed and running right on the edge of being "lean" so as to make the most of the fuel. If you ran older cars with the fuel ratios the run on newer ones, you'd burn up the engine.
When it comes down to it though, I think the real reason for the computers is emissions control.
Cargo Master
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 4
From: Redford, Mi.
Your right it is very difficult to discern between reliable for the computer control and better engineering. However, I think a large part of today's long term reliability is the computers ability to adapt to changing conditions over a long time period. Cars from the true non-computer days couldn't go 100k miles without adjustments. And a large part of that efficiency improvement is being able to use lighter parts that are better managed and running right on the edge of being "lean" so as to make the most of the fuel. If you ran older cars with the fuel ratios the run on newer ones, you'd burn up the engine.
When it comes down to it though, I think the real reason for the computers is emissions control.
When it comes down to it though, I think the real reason for the computers is emissions control.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Nothing Special
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
6
Apr 12, 2013 07:10 AM
AndeyHall
6.0L Power Stroke Diesel
12
May 15, 2011 01:00 PM
gamehunter
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
17
Sep 7, 2002 07:47 AM