Auto invention FLOPS ?

[carbking]

Maybe not a "flop" invention, but really, really stupid in my opinion...a gas pedal that only communicates to the carb via an electronic chip.

Or an automatic transmission that won't shift if the electronic speed sensor goes bad!

Dumb!

Jon.

[d2_willys]

I have one of those windshield antennas in my 76 Olds, it works great! What is the beef??

Don

F.M. signals would jump when going under a bridge, etc. This was on a new 71 Camaro. If they were so great why did they go back to stick antennas, and why didn't other manufacturers continue to go with stick antennas? Being so close to the distributor on Chevys didn't help matters.

Doesn't help when you get a broken windshield, you have to get another one like it.

My 78 Skyhawk had a stick antenna. Windshield antenna lasted all of what 6-7 years!

Edited October 6, 2010 by d2_willys (see edit history)

[poci1957]

If they were so great why did they go back to stick antennas, and why didn't other manufacturers continue to go with stick antennas?

My 78 Skyhawk had a stick antenna. Windshield antenna lasted all of what 6-7 years!

Actually they are back and have been for a while. Various Ford cars and SUVs and some imports have had antennas in the glass during the last ten years or so, BUT in the rear window or SUV quarter window rather than the windshield.

[Guest]

F.M. signals would jump when going under a bridge, etc. This was on a new 71 Camaro. If they were so great why did they go back to stick antennas, and why didn't other manufacturers continue to go with stick antennas? Being so close to the distributor on Chevys didn't help matters.

Doesn't help when you get a broken windshield, you have to get another one like it.

My 78 Skyhawk had a stick antenna. Windshield antenna lasted all of what 6-7 years!

Mabe something else was amiss as I've never had that problem, but I do remember plenty of people getting antennas ripped off in car washes! Based on that fact alone I can see which was the better idea.

Don

[joe_padavano]

Or an automatic transmission that won't shift if the electronic speed sensor goes bad!

Dumb!

Jon.

But it's OK to have a distributor that won't spark if the sensor in IT goes bad? Or at transmission that won't shift if the vacuum modulator goes bad? Sorry, but this one is a stretch.

[carbking]

Joe - I can easily do without ALL of the electronics. Points and condensor were good enough for me. And the Ford Aerostar will NOT shift properly if the speed sensor fails. Experience.

Quite honestly, I can easily do without the dogmatic transmissions; unfortunately, quite difficult to purchase a modern vehicle with a stick shift.

Jon.

[Rusty_OToole]

How about the Cadillac V16? First year ads called it America's most exclusive car, and bragged only 5000 would be sold the first year. What a laugh. They made that model for 10 years and never sold 5000 the whole time. It may have been a great car in some ways but it was a commercial flop. It was also a technical dead end.

GM deserves the credit for being willing to try a lot of new ideas but most of them were flops, while a few were screaming successes.

[joe_padavano]

Joe - I can easily do without ALL of the electronics. Points and condensor were good enough for me. And the Ford Aerostar will NOT shift properly if the speed sensor fails. Experience.

Quite honestly, I can easily do without the dogmatic transmissions; unfortunately, quite difficult to purchase a modern vehicle with a stick shift.

Jon.

Sorry, Jon, but even a manual trans won't shift if the throwout bearing goes bad. At some point, you can't blame mechanical failures as a "flop". The speed sensor in a computer controlled trans is no different than the governor in a non-computerized automatic. Either one goes bad and the trans won't shift right.

[carbking]

Joe - you may possibly be correct; however, I have yet to have to call a tow-truck with a stick shift transmission, even with over 500,000 miles on the vehicle. But if you like the electronics, that certainly is your right. I still think having to park the vehicle with a perfectly good drivetrain and a bad electronic sensor is stupid!

Jon.

[joe_padavano]

I still think having to park the vehicle with a perfectly good drivetrain and a bad electronic sensor is stupid!

Jon.

So, you use hand-crank starters in all your cars? I mean, after all, you'd have to park a vehicle with a perfectly good drivetrain if you had a bad battery or starter solenoid too, so by that logic, electric starters are stupid also.

[Guest]

How about the Cadillac V16? First year ads called it America's most exclusive car, and bragged only 5000 would be sold the first year. What a laugh. They made that model for 10 years and never sold 5000 the whole time. It may have been a great car in some ways but it was a commercial flop. It was also a technical dead end.

Rusty, how can you say that from a historical point of view? The V-16 was introduced just two weeks after the stock market crash of 29. I'm sure you've heard of some dethroned ex- millionaries that were jumping to their death out of skyscrapers? Not alot of clients those days.

Still last Saturday morning at our weekly doughnut gathering with our old cars, two of my friends showed up with a Auburn V-12 and a 32 Cadillac V-16 roadster. Guess where all the people were gathered around? Not the Hot Rods/ Street rods or muscle cars. Even though my family were Pontiac and Olds loyalist, my Dad always talked about seeing the V-12, V-16 Cadillac or the V-12 Packards when he was a teenager. Just like our generation built even fewer cars like the Ford GT-40, those cars were built not for profit. In Fords case it was to link your Ford to the GT-40 or the Shelby Cobra Mustang. Take a good look at the front of a 32 Chevy with the hood side curtain vents...you are now looking at a baby Cadillac. Can you see the connection?

Don

[Dave@Moon]

So I guess in your mind "profit" = "flop"?

You can say what you want about the H2 and H3 ("Hey, let's put a box on a Suburban or Colorado frame and charge 50% more for it"), but they were definitely moneymakers for GM.

For a while. The margin (profit per vehicle) on an individual Hummer was indeed very high. However the cost of the creation of the division was almost certainly never recovered, and it was losing money outright hand over fist for the last three years of it's existence even with the huge margin on each unit.

GM bought the brand in 1999 from AM General, right at the all-time low for energy and gas prices. It could be chalked up as just an incredibly untimely move, if it were done in concert with other moves in other markets. At the time, GM wasn't doing anything with it's car lines worth mentioning. The truck lines were being redone every 4-5 years instead. As the distilled essence of what was wrong with Rick Wagoner's GM, Hummer has to be the very epitome of a "flop".

GM didn't make a profit between 1994 and 2010. Hummer was but one reason why, but perhaps the most important one.

[Dandy Dave]

GM's first diesel car engines, real winners!

The Oliver Tractor Company did the same thing in the '50's, trying to convert a gas engine to run as a diesel, with the same results, broken cranks, poor performance.

Wayne

The Oliver engine of the 50's and 60's was a Waukesha designed diesel. The Diesel models were actually converted to a Gas engine in the gas models. The gas engines were quite good. There were several diesels around here also, a 77 Row Crop, and an 88 Row Crop Diesel. Both were still running well into the early 90's. The earlier Hercules Diesel engines were not as well made and used in Cletrac - Oliver crawlers. Of course many farmers were heavy on the either also which lead to early failure. Most of these engines that I have seen around here failed of hard water disease because the farmers were too cheep to use antifreeze. Split them down the middle between the sleeves every time. Dandy Dave!

[Guest bkazmer]

Reeves drive still lives in automotive - it's the basis of CVT

You can still get a stick in a number of cars - I don't mean shifting an automatic (fluid coupling) manually. Only some of them still have clutch pedals (Dual clutch trannies don't)

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Here' s another "good idea" that just didn't work-out:

Studebaker's sliding-roof Wagonaire... would've been a handy feature if they had found a way to make it water-tight....

Wonder if GM had any better luck when they revived the notion with their SUVs a few years back ?

[joe_padavano]

Here' s another "good idea" that just didn't work-out:

Studebaker's sliding-roof Wagonaire... would've been a handy feature if they had found a way to make it water-tight....

Wonder if GM had any better luck when they revived the notion with their SUVs a few years back ?

Considering that the Envoy with the sliding roof came and went after only a couple of years, I would say, no. I also find it amusing that the ads for that GMC always showed a tree sticking up out of the open roof. Wonder if it had any leaves left on it by the time they got it home?

[Jim Rohn]

Here' s another "good idea" that just didn't work-out:

Studebaker's sliding-roof Wagonaire... would've been a handy feature if they had found a way to make it water-tight....

Wonder if GM had any better luck when they revived the notion with their SUVs a few years back ?

no, they did not.

I saw one at the local home depot last year (haven't seen any others in a long time) and the owner LOVES it but the dealer and GM hates it

too many warranty issues, they tried to buy them back (according to him) but he ended up with an extended warranty for free instead ...

apparently they are extremely troublesome ... I do not know from any other experience, only from talking to this one individual who loves his ...

[Jim Rohn]

this would have to qualify as a flop:

http://forums.aaca.org/f170/cow-catcher-car-290161.html

[keiser31]

this would have to qualify as a flop:

http://forums.aaca.org/f170/cow-catcher-car-290161.html

Yep...can you imagine being "scooped up" by that device only to have your head go through the car's radiator?

[Rusty_OToole]

How about the Cadillac V16? First year ads called it America's most exclusive car, and bragged only 5000 would be sold the first year. What a laugh. They made that model for 10 years and never sold 5000 the whole time. It may have been a great car in some ways but it was a commercial flop. It was also a technical dead end.

Rusty, how can you say that from a historical point of view? The V-16 was introduced just two weeks after the stock market crash of 29. I'm sure you've heard of some dethroned ex- millionaries that were jumping to their death out of skyscrapers? Not alot of clients those days.

Still last Saturday morning at our weekly doughnut gathering with our old cars, two of my friends showed up with a Auburn V-12 and a 32 Cadillac V-16 roadster. Guess where all the people were gathered around? Not the Hot Rods/ Street rods or muscle cars. Even though my family were Pontiac and Olds loyalist, my Dad always talked about seeing the V-12, V-16 Cadillac or the V-12 Packards when he was a teenager. Just like our generation built even fewer cars like the Ford GT-40, those cars were built not for profit. In Fords case it was to link your Ford to the GT-40 or the Shelby Cobra Mustang. Take a good look at the front of a 32 Chevy with the hood side curtain vents...you are now looking at a baby Cadillac. Can you see the connection?

Don

You can only say it from a historical point of view. At the time they were proud of their new car, rightly so. Events proved it to be the wrong car at the wrong time. Such cars became passe and that whole line of development turned out to be a dead end.

I knew my statement would be controversial. The fact is, the car was a white elephant. No doubt a white elephant can be an awe inspiring sight but still.

It reminds me of a statement by a former executive of Kaiser Frazer. He was saying the company should never have made such cars as the 4 door convertible and Kaiser Darrin because they cost the company badly needed resources and resulted in losses of time and money they could not afford. The interviewer pointed out that those cars are now valuable collector's items to which he replied, "so is the ossified egg of the Dodo bird".

[TG57Roadmaster]

Chrysler's Turbine Program of the '50's-'60's that culminated in the '64 Turbine Car...

Surprised it took this long to get around to it.

Beautiful car, fabulous flop!

TG

[TG57Roadmaster]

Chevy Vega's sardines-in-a-can, "Vert-A-Pac" railway shipping...

-

From Wikipedia...

"The Vega was designed to be shipped vertically, nose down. Special rail cars known as Vert-A-Pac cars designed jointly between General Motors and Southern Pacific and held 30 Vegas versus 18 in normal tri-level autoracks.

Each Vega was fitted with four removable, cast-steel sockets inserted into the undercarriage.<SUP id=cite_ref-99 class=reference>[100]</SUP>

<SUP></SUP>

Chevrolet conducted vibration and low-speed crash tests to make sure nose-down Vegas wouldn't shift or be damaged in railcar collisions. Chevrolet's goal was to deliver Vegas topped with fluids and ready to drive to the dealership. To do this Vega engineers had to design a special engine oil baffle to prevent oil from entering the No. 1 cylinder, batteries had filler caps located high up on the rear edge of the case to prevent acid spilling, the carburetor float bowl had a special tube that drained gasoline into the vapor canister during shipment, and the windshield washer bottle stood at a 45 degree angle. Plastic spacers were wedged in beside the powertrain to prevent damage to engine and transmission mounts. The wedges were removed when cars were unloaded.

The rail car doors were opened and closed via forklift.<SUP id=cite_ref-100 class=reference>[101]"</SUP>

<SUP></SUP>

<SUP>What a concept!</SUP>

<SUP>TG</SUP>

[Guest]

You can only say it from a historical point of view. At the time they were proud of their new car, rightly so. Events proved it to be the wrong car at the wrong time. Such cars became passe and that whole line of development turned out to be a dead end.

I knew my statement would be controversial. The fact is, the car was a white elephant. No doubt a white elephant can be an awe inspiring sight but still.

It reminds me of a statement by a former executive of Kaiser Frazer. He was saying the company should never have made such cars as the 4 door convertible and Kaiser Darrin because they cost the company badly needed resources and resulted in losses of time and money they could not afford. The interviewer pointed out that those cars are now valuable collector's items to which he replied, "so is the ossified egg of the Dodo bird".

I'm afraid you missed the point completly Rusty.

Don

[Dandy Dave]

Vegas, Shipped nose down... :eek: ...... can't say I ever see'd that aforn... It is a wonder that they did not leak fluids out all over. Especially battey acid from the plugs installed too loose. I wonder how many got loose and scratched the roofs. :confused: Dandy Dave!

Edited October 8, 2010 by Dandy Dave (see edit history)

[JD in KC]

Accelerator pedal starter as found on Packard, Buick?... 40's 50's. Not ideal with a flooded engine. On the other hand, if I were to leave the keys in the Packard in a Walmart parking lot... I doubt 1 out of 500 people would know how to start it.

[Guest De Soto Frank]

The Caddy "452" V-16 was more a victim of poor economic circumstances than it was a technological flop...

It was and still is a mechanical marvel.

Had the Stock market crashed five years later, and the US enjoyed the continued "boom" of the Roaring Twenties, Caddy would have probably sold more "452"s... the other ultra luxury marques (Pierce, Stearns, Marmon. etc) would have held-on a little longer too....

My V-16 question is, that given the limited sales numbers of the original "452" OHV 16, and the lingering Depression, why did Caddy bother re-designing the V-16 as an L-head and trotting it back out for four more seasons , '37-'40 ?

[poci1957]

The Caddy "452" V-16 was more a victim of poor economic circumstances than it was a technological flop...It was and still is a mechanical marvel.

My V-16 question is, that given the limited sales numbers of the original "452" OHV 16, and the lingering Depression, why did Caddy bother re-designing the V-16 as an L-head and trotting it back out for four more seasons , '37-'40 ?

Frank, agreed on the economic downturn. If luxury car sales in the depression reflect a flop then Duesenburgs are a flop too, I am willing to judge both by a different standard.

However, your second question about the L head V16 is a good one. I can only think that Cadillac still felt they needed to out-do Packard and a cheaper to make L head might allow them to continue to offer a V16. But the expense of developing a second small volume engine would seem hard to justify; apparently GM execs thought the prestige of a V16 was worth the cost. Todd

[Guest]

The Caddy "452" V-16 was more a victim of poor economic circumstances than it was a technological flop...

It was and still is a mechanical marvel.

My V-16 question is, that given the limited sales numbers of the original "452" OHV 16, and the lingering Depression, why did Caddy bother re-designing the V-16 as an L-head and trotting it back out for four more seasons , '37-'40 ?

As I understand it the new flathead "en-block" V-16 was designed as sales were dropping on the OHV 12 & 16 engines. The new 431 cid V-16 engine contained 1,627 parts compaired to 3,273 parts of the OHV V-16 and weighed 250 lbs less than the 452. The flathead 452 engine was more compact than even the OHV V-12 and was lower in height than the OHV engines. The flathead V-16 produced the same 185 horsepower as the OHV V-16.

Due to the depression continuing and deepening of it again in 1937 ( this is a good lesson because the government can't spend it's way out of a depression- Hello people of government today) the writing was already on the wall for this engine too. The facts are these; 2,887 or 3,250 (depending on the source) V-16 engines built in 1930 or 3,878 were built in 1930-1937 The new flathead V-16 had a grand total 514 from 1938 - 1940

Why did they build the new engine?? cost was the factor. Why just 514? deepening of the depression killed it.

Don

[poci1957]

In hindsight, we can see that this decision did not make economic sense, especially by modern standards of bean-counting. I guess we can only try to think about what things looked like in 1935-36 when development was taking place.

Let's look at 1934-35. Cadillac was making a staggering number of different styles and in TWO years sold 8318 V8s, 1098 V12s and 150(!) V16s. In just 1934 Packard sold 7040 Eights and Super Eights and 960 V12s and those numbers were considered unsustainable enough that the One Twenty was needed to save the company. GM had already planned to axe the LaSalle for 1934 but cheapened it and kept it in the line for 7218 model year sales, not bad.

So what might these numbers have told the brass at GM? Alfred Sloan must have seen the "price ladder" of the GM system as ineffective without a top of the line car to draw interest and be a "halo" over the rest of the line and sell the . So the system had to have a gold standard at the top and he would have been loath to kill Cadillac even if it's own numbers did not add up. The new L head V16 must have been seen as the way to replace the expensive OHV V12 and V16 and save some money but still have the bragging rights of a multi-cylinder car. Then, of course, by 1941 the whole coachbuilt, multi cylinder luxury market was so dead that the next move was the mass-class Cadillac of 1941. Interesting process, Todd

[Rusty_OToole]

The Cad V16 was a disappointment in terms of sales, and it was a technical dead end. In other words from a business standpoint it was a flop.

This does not take away from the merits of the motor, or the number of people who desired one (but couldn't afford it).

My point was that there is such a thing as a magnificent flop, a car that seems to have everything but in reality, misses the mark.

Other examples would the the Chrysler turbine car already mentioned, and possibly the front wheel drive Cord. GM had a whole series of great new ideas that went noplace in the 60s such as the Corvair, aluminum engine Olds F85 and Buick Special, Pontiac Tempest with 4 wheel independent suspension and slant 4 motor made out of half a V8.

[Guest]

In hindsight, we can see that this decision did not make economic sense, especially by modern standards of bean-counting. I guess we can only try to think about what things looked like in 1935-36 when development was taking place.

Let's look at 1934-35. Cadillac was making a staggering number of different styles and in TWO years sold 8318 V8s, 1098 V12s and 150(!) V16s. In just 1934 Packard sold 7040 Eights and Super Eights and 960 V12s and those numbers were considered unsustainable enough that the One Twenty was needed to save the company. GM had already planned to axe the LaSalle for 1934 but cheapened it and kept it in the line for 7218 model year sales, not bad.

So what might these numbers have told the brass at GM? Alfred Sloan must have seen the "price ladder" of the GM system as ineffective without a top of the line car to draw interest and be a "halo" over the rest of the line and sell the . So the system had to have a gold standard at the top and he would have been loath to kill Cadillac even if it's own numbers did not add up. The new L head V16 must have been seen as the way to replace the expensive OHV V12 and V16 and save some money but still have the bragging rights of a multi-cylinder car. Then, of course, by 1941 the whole coachbuilt, multi cylinder luxury market was so dead that the next move was the mass-class Cadillac of 1941. Interesting process, Todd

Todd, thanks for the above, I was trying to explain to Rusty this point in more vailed terms hoping to be understood. The 16's & 12's were setting a standard, never meaning to be a sales success. In a way like why motor rama cars were built except these cars could be had by the very rich.

Don

Edited October 9, 2010 by helfen (see edit history)

[bhambulldog]

Copper-cooled Chevrolet four ( NOT one of Charlie Kettering's better ideas...)

In regards to the Edsel being a "flop", being a former Edsel owner, the biggest engineering flaw with the Edsel was the "Tele-touch" automatic transmission shifter in '58: it did have reliability issues at the time, but I believe dedicated Edsel enthusiasts have come-up with a solution to make it a reliable system.

The bigger issues with the Edsel were it's front-end styling, and it being priced for a market share that really didn't exist ( or was already covered by existing Ford - Mercury - Lincoln products.)

Aside from Tele-touch, Edsel shared the same engineering with it's Ford cousins and was every bit as good a car as other '58-'60 FoMoCo products...

The Edsel's main reason for downfall (IMHO) was; Introducing a new model car in a recession. Every car brand was experiencing lower sale numbers. Just, as the Edsel came out. Perhaps, if Edsel had been introduced as, sales were increasing (say 1952?), rather than when, decreasing.... the story might have been different. Something that did come from Edsel, was; The MEL engine. The MEL is, a very fine powerplant. Powering Lincolns up until 1968.

[Rusty_OToole]

You are right about the Edsel being the right car at the wrong time. A few years earlier medium price car sales were very strong, in fact Buick outsold Plymouth in 1954.

In the medium price bracket all Ford had was Mercury, and if a Ford man did not happen to like the Mercury it was a long jump to Lincoln.

By contrast Chrysler had Dodge, DeSoto and the Chrysler Windsor while GM offered Pontiac, Olds and Buick.

Edsel was supposed to compete with all those cars while Mercury was to go against the big Buick Roadmaster and Chrysler New Yorker while Lincoln sold against Cadillac, Imperial and Packard.

Unfortunately Edsel debuted just when everyone quit buying large luxurious cars and turned to small cars like the Rambler, Volkswagen and Studebaker Lark.

Nobody mentions that Ford brought out 5 new cars between 1955 and 1965 and every one was a smash hit except Edsel.

They were the Thunderbird, Edsel, Falcon, Fairlane and Mustang. Not a bad batting average, if you can hit .800 you are a champ in any league.

Edited October 10, 2010 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[Guest Silverghost]

I believe that the strange front grill along with it's odd name killed the Ford Edsel...

It was however a very good car.

Very modern styling indeed !

[ex98thdrill]

Another so called flop that GMC did about 8-10 years ago was the rear wheel steering GMC trucks (Denali??). I liked the concept, but the concept was gone by the time I was ready to replace the truck that I had with a new truck.

[Larry Schramm]

The rear wheel steering was called QuadraSteer and was a great option. It allowed the large sport utilites to drive like a smaller car with a shorter wheel base. Too bad GM was not able to get the option priced right by it's self so it would have had larger acceptance.

[ex98thdrill]

The rear wheel steering was called QuadraSteer and was a great option. It allowed the large sport utilites to drive like a smaller car with a shorter wheel base. Too bad GM was not able to get the option priced right by it's self so it would have had larger acceptance.

I agree. When GM came out with that feature I was waiting for them to get the bugs out of them so I could buy one, but when it came time to buy a new truck, it had been phased out.

[Guest bkazmer]

GM's PR department seems to like to claim they invented everything, but 4 wheel steering was offered years earlier in the Mitsubishi 3000. The front and back wheels turned in the same direction or in opposite directions depending on vehicle speed.

[joe_padavano]

...but 4 wheel steering was offered years earlier in the Mitsubishi 3000...

And on hook-and-ladder fire trucks long before that.

[Guest]

And on hook-and-ladder fire trucks long before that.

We all knew Nissan/Infiniti did have and still do have four wheel steering but what caught my attention was the pre and WW1 Porsche Tractor trailers that not only had the tractor doing all of this, but the trailers as well. Ten trailers behind one tractor all with their own electric motors connected to the mother. The caption goes; Electric power was transmitted to motors in each of the four powered wheels of each trailer, by cable, as well as to the traction wheels of the power unit itself. Steering was unique as each trailer followed in the path of the front unit, like a serpent and thus the wagon could enter any pathway no wider than its lead unit required. Mountain passes could be negotiated with ease.

The big gun that could shoot from France/Belgium to the British Isles "Big Birtha" used this Porsche tractor system too.

Those two tractors were diesel electric known by some (not me) as hybrids.

The first Lohner-Porsche-Chase battery powered car was at the Paris 1900 World Exposition. The first mixed (hybrid) Lohner-Porsche was 1901.

Hook and ladder were unique, but they required two people to operate independently from one another, this Porsche tractor told all the rest of the wagons what to do.

Don

Edited October 11, 2010 by helfen (see edit history)