I'm pretty sure this isn't really the case anymore, unless you mean semi-customized ARM cpus.
It is literally impossible to meet EPA regulations with a carburetor engine, fuel injection is a must, making the issue much worse is that newer cars have all kinds of luxury/safety items buyers expect like lane assist, parking assist, you name it. All these of course require CPU processing power and, more chips. Also when GM, Ford, Toyota design a new feature set for a new vehicle they don't use off the shelf CPU's but custom one's built just for their purpose.
I have two of them.Cars are in short supply.
It sucks.
Hell of a lot easier to have custom designed programs rather than custom designed chips. I'm quite confident it's just x86 brains running some ultra lightweight *nix thing.I'm pretty sure this isn't really the case anymore, unless you mean semi-customized ARM cpus.
Hell of a lot easier to have custom designed programs rather than custom designed chips. I'm quite confident it's just x86 brains running some ultra lightweight *nix thing.
Sorry, meant to say/imply ARM. I should finish my coffee before posting technical opinionsI highly doubt they are running x86 cpus. I'm no expert, but it just doesn't make sense for the relatively low-power requirements.
Look into a diesel W123 if you want a prepper carI have a little prepper gene.. you know how long you have to go back to get a gasoline driven vehicle without chips? Its impossible, thats how old.
One of the things you quickly discover is those old cars are far less reliable then the new ones.I have a little prepper gene.. you know how long you have to go back to get a gasoline driven vehicle without chips? Its impossible, thats how old.
Yea, ARM chips make a ton of more sense than any X86 CPU but since ARM chips are much less advanced than an X86 shouldn't there be plenty floating around?. I've never seen anyone dig into a car PCM to see what exactly makes it tick.I highly doubt they are running x86 cpus. I'm no expert, but it just doesn't make sense for the relatively low-power requirements.
Cars started with computer control in 1982, the "feedback" carburetor, I had one in my '82 Cutlass supreme, horribly implemented design used until throttle-body fuel injection became more affordable/practicable in the mid '80's.All that crap is why I'll never have a car made after the early 00's when it all started. Problem now is with all the totaled, flooded wrecks people will be seeking whatever they can afford short term which drives up the used market. Which is the point of this thread, not all whatever else is being whined about.
The whole point is to get something that survives a solar flare or worse… so bothOne of the things you quickly discover is those old cars are far less reliable then the new ones.
They still have lots of parts that will break that are just as unobtainable as a computer chip. Carb parts, fuel pumps, universal joints, needle bearings, roller bearings, crack shaft bearings, etc.
These parts require both material sciences and tolerances that exceed what you are going to achieve with the fall of civilization. They are sufficiently model specific that you are only going to get them by salvage.
If your only getting parts by salvage, you do not want an old car, you want the most common vehicle. Enjoy your new F-150*.
*The F150 has been produced for decades, sold very well for decades, and for periods of time has not had large model changes from year to year. It is not like you needed a soul anyway.
From that read,
Ford has taken some heat in the recent past for the way they change parts from model year to model year, it's not that the starter from an F-150 3 years ago wouldent work on the current model year it's that Ford was intentionally making subtle changes that made them incompatible. The reason you ask? simple, car manufactures make a LOT of $$ selling parts but aftermarket suppliers are quick to rush in and offer a part at a much reduced price, if the aftermarket has to make 3 different starters for 3 different model years they can't do that cheaply so the incentive to try is lost. For example, I just replaced a starter in my '06 GM V6 engine, the cost, brand new from Amazon was only $55. The reason is GM sought to save $$ and used the same starter from '98-09 on literally every V6 and many inline 4's so the aftermarket manufactures only had to make one starter to cover all those years.One of the things you quickly discover is those old cars are far less reliable then the new ones.
They still have lots of parts that will break that are just as unobtainable as a computer chip. Carb parts, fuel pumps, universal joints, needle bearings, roller bearings, crack shaft bearings, etc.
These parts require both material sciences and tolerances that exceed what you are going to achieve with the fall of civilization. They are sufficiently model specific that you are only going to get them by salvage.
If your only getting parts by salvage, you do not want an old car, you want the most common vehicle. Enjoy your new F-150*.
*The F150 has been produced for decades, sold very well for decades, and for periods of time has not had large model changes from year to year. It is not like you needed a soul anyway.
Chips? I got stacks of 'em, all neatly canned.No point in manufacturing more cars when the chips aren't available.
GM shutting down most of its north American plants for 1-2 weeks because of the chip shortage. No point in manufacturing more cars when the chips aren't available.
GM shutting down production at most of its plants in North America
General Motors will shut production at most of its North American plants for a week or two starting next week as the worsening chip shortage takes another bite out of its plans.www.cnn.com
To be fair it would always be that much, chip shortage or not.I sure wish I had a mechanical instrument cluster. Looks like it's finally died. Last estimate from Shysler was $1700. Gee, who new commercial grade electronics in a car would be a really bad idea.
That too.It is literally impossible to meet EPA regulations with a carburetor engine, fuel injection is a must, making the issue much worse is that newer cars have all kinds of luxury/safety items buyers expect like lane assist, parking assist, you name it. All these of course require CPU processing power and, more chips. Also when GM, Ford, Toyota design a new feature set for a new vehicle they don't use off the shelf CPU's but custom one's built just for their purpose.
ESC is worth every penny and computer chip it takes.- Electronic Stability Control? Chips for sensors, a computer, and controllers for each brake independently.
Interestingly, the original roll out for airbags they were employed by mechanical means. A metal ball, (gold plated) was mounted very close to a set of contacts and held in place by magnets, if the car struck anything and suddenly decelerated the ball would break free of the magnetic force and close the contacts deploying the airbags. In the late '90's onboard body computers took over this task, interestingly, the NHTSA folks went to car makers and asked for data involved with crashes, (car speed, brake deployment, G-forces) to better understand how vehicles were faring in real-world crashes which are different than the concrete crashes we've all seen. It was named the "event data recorder" and LEO officials soon learned to fetch a search warrant to reveal what happened, yes, your own car can rat you out, many do not know about this system even existing, Google it for more info.I was just making a list of all the things the government now requires in a car that require chips.
- Airbags? Chips for sensors.
- Electronic Stability Control? Chips for sensors, a computer, and controllers for each brake independently.
- Rear view camera? Chips at the camera, chips in the screen. And once you have a screen it really makes sense to use it for other stuff, like the radio display or the instrument cluster.
That too.
Meanwhile, I wager that the term "Shyster" comes from the name of the Shakespearean character in "Merchant of Venice" -- "Shylock".
Is it therefore a reference to the moral character of Shylock? Or is it a reference to his religious persuasion? Possibly both. You could call it a coincidence of historical circumstance, because many Jews at that time found a living in the business of money-lending.
I suppose you could ask any Jew if he/she was offended by the "Shys-ler" term discussed here. I couldn't guarantee what one would say about it either way. But unlike the N-word as a stark reminder of someone's race, it isn't a direct reference to Jewish heritage. It's vague, indirect and subtle.
The etymology of the word is not generally agreed upon. The Oxford English Dictionary describes it as "of obscure origin", possibly deriving from a historical sense of "shy" meaning disreputable.[1]
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary deemed it probably based on the German Scheißer (literally "shitter", i.e. "defecator"[2]). A book published in 2013 traces the first use back to 1843, when scammers in New York City would exploit prisoners by pretending to be lawyers. These scammers were disparagingly referred to as "shisers", meaning "worthless people" in British slang, which in turn was originally derived from the German "Scheißer".[3]
Various false etymologies have suggested an antisemitic origin, possibly associated with the character of Shylock from Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, but there is no clear evidence for this.[4] One source asserts that the term originated in Philadelphia in 1843 from a disreputable attorney named "Schuster."