Top Innovations - According to CNN

"LimitedTimeOnly @ opposite-lock.com" (limitedtimeonly) 12/20/2016 at 08:47 • Filed to: Innovations

0

10

CNN has an article listing !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . Do you agree with the list? What would you add or take away?

The list includes all-wheel drive on the Audi Quattro (called four-wheel drive in the article), GM’s Hydramatic automatic transmission, the Mini for small, cheap transportation, and Volvo for three-point safety belts (including opening up the patent so every manufacturer could use them). Also Karl Benz’ wife coming up with brake shoe linings, and Henry Ford for mass-production.

I find it amusing that the article is in the CNN “Style” section. I’m not convinced that it has enough substance, although these are all good things to highlight. Feels like someone was collecting facts rather than really analyzing automotive history, but maybe I just need more coffee this morning.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > LimitedTimeOnly @ opposite-lock.com 12/20/2016 at 08:53

3

Wow, what a shitpost.

Audi AMC changed all that with its Quattro Eagle SX4

Sorry, that was bothering me.

Party-vi > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 12/20/2016 at 09:11

2

Quattro was shown in 1980 and produced in 1981 with the 1st gen Quattro permanent AWD system, locking center and rear diff. SX/4 was released in 1981 with a permanent viscous coupling AWD system, open f/r diffs.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Party-vi 12/20/2016 at 09:17

0

You sure it didn’t get released in 1979 as a 1980 model year?

Party-vi > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 12/20/2016 at 09:26

1

Specifically the Eagle SX/4 debuted in 1981 and was built in Kenosha Wisconsin from 1981 to 1983. It was dead by 1984.

You’re referencing the release date for the AMC Eagle, a different vehicle.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > Party-vi 12/20/2016 at 09:32

0

Gotcha. Always thought that SX4 was just what they called the 4WD ones, not the fastback bodystyle.

Party-vi > SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie 12/20/2016 at 09:45

0

Yep it was the 2-door.

jimz > Party-vi 12/20/2016 at 09:58

0

But the 1980 Eagle had full-time 4WD, so AMC still beat Audi to the punch on that. not that the Eagle and Quattro were really competing for the same customer, though.

Party-vi > jimz 12/20/2016 at 10:09

1

But the Spyker 60HP had full-time 4WD, and the Mercedes Dernburg-Wagen and full-time 4WD, and both of those were out before WWI.

Audi’s use of Quattro to win rally races established AWD systems as a performance benefit, and other manufacturers took notice. The AMC Eagle was seen as a nifty car, but the message didn’t really hit home for another two decades in the US. I would agree that while AMC may have beaten Audi to the punch by a year, they did not have the impact on the auto industry that Audi did with their 4WD system.

Dave the car guy , still here > LimitedTimeOnly @ opposite-lock.com 12/20/2016 at 10:40

0

You kids need to pull out some old Road & Track magazines to get this discussion straight. The Jensen FF predated the quattro system by 14 yrs. I lusted after that car and didn’t put throw out that issue until it was coming apart at the staples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen_FF

jdrgoat - Ponticrack? > LimitedTimeOnly @ opposite-lock.com 12/20/2016 at 12:01

1

As with all “articles” of this type, it’s just skimming the surface and reconfirming for people what they already think they know.

Audi didn’t invent AWD (they don’t even mention that there is a difference between awd and 4wd, let alone what it is). Plus, that thing was an expensive homologation special and they hardly produced or sold any. The 5000 is a better Audi example, and then we’re right back at Eagle being the first to make it for the everyman. All depends on how you want to measure it.

Benz didn’t invent the car, and Ford didn’t invent the assembly line. Very popular stories in pop culture, though. I am glad that they kept the story straight on Mrs. Benz’s role.

Not only were electric cars around in the early 20th century (being produced by names people haven’t heard of), they were more common than internal combustion engines until the infrastructure (gas stations) was there.

And this is just nitpicking from me, but it would be nice if people actually brought up the difference between modern manual transmissions and the manual transmission that people were using when the Hydramatic first made its debut. Most people who drive a manual now would have a fit if they tried to drive a true old school one. “What’s rev matching?” “I think you’re making up that definition to ‘double clutching.’” “It makes a grinding noise going into first sometimes, I don’t know why.” Modern synchronizers are an innovation, too. Many manual supporters today would take a modern torque converter auto 11 times out of 10 versus a non-synchro manual.

Oh, and I really don’t care about that “connected driving” part. That’s just complexity added on top of the car that doesn’t make the car better. A walnut desk from the 1820's doesn’t become better and more innovative when I set my laptop on it.