electric steering

[jlat]

hello people; A co-worker just bought a 2013 Honda CRV and he says it has ES. I don't know what to think about it as if it fails I guess it's like having no power assist? He does say it has a nice ride.
You know what happens if your E brakes fail?
IBBY

 

[turbojoe1]

My new Chevy Malibu has E assist steering. Its just another thing to help raise mpg's.

 

[Scott Atk]

Supposedly it's the next big thing. There's a couple companies doing them for muscle cars with more applications coming. Here's an example:
http://americanpowertrain.com/c-319897-shop-by-category-electric-power-steering.html

 

[TurboDave]

Lot's of new cars have it. My Lincoln MKT also has the electric power steering.

 

[faster]

I'm getting too old for this stuff I guess. I'm going backward and begun only buying vehicles I can fix with the tools and equipment I need to repair cars without all this electronic control. New vehicles are just so boring to drive. I would still rather take a trip in my 67 Cadillac/72 Stage 1/87 T/99 F-350 than my dads new Lincoln. I have never been stranded by a vehicle until EMC's.

Mikey

 

[salvageV6]

Bingo Mikey.

 

[GNTIM]

It's been around for years, 1 less power drain on the engine

 

[NASSTY]

My Ecoboost F150 has electric power assist steering. It drives like a dream.

 

[RUDE DOG]

It all sounds great and all but what about the cost for repair, electric motors wear out too and they are not cheap.

 

[DavidM]

For $2,500+ I'll use manual force. Plus we all need a workout once in a while.

 

[we4Mateo]

There are two systems. Some use a direct electric steering asst motor and it mounts on the steering shaft and assists at low speeds and is basically off at highway speeds. The benefit is a) if it fails, you simply have direct manual steering and b) infinite assist levels.

The second system is electric over hydraulic, like our powermaster brake systems, in that an electric motor, instead of the engine, runs a hydraulic pump. The second will act like a regular hydraulic system if it fails in that you'll still need to manually push the fluid through the system to steer. The benefit is it feels more traditional and thus an easy transition for consumers. I Asst is still variable but not infinitely variable like system one.

Posted from the TurboBuick.Com mobile app

 

[faster]

It's been around for years, 1 less power drain on the engine

So the electricity to run it comes from? Solar panels? Alkaline Batteries?

Mikey

 

[TurboDave]

Power from the battery. What he meant by one less drain on the engine was "one less belt driven accessory"

 

[faster]

Power from the battery. What he meant by one less drain on the engine was "one less belt driven accessory"

Again, the power required comes from? It comes from the engine. I understand one less piece of equipment on the serpentine but the energy required to turn the wheels is still being supplied by the engine. It may be more efficient requiring less energy I don't know but it is not free with the now 180+ amp alternators in vehicles. I would be interested in doing a study on how much mechanical energy is required to run the electric driven components used in braking, suspension and now steering vs say a 60's car with its 40 amp alternator. Lets level the playing field and put a serpentine belt on both place them on a dyno and load the power consuming accessories.

Mikey

 

[we4Mateo]

Again, the power required comes from? It comes from the engine. I understand one less piece of equipment on the serpentine but the energy required to turn the wheels is still being supplied by the engine. It may be more efficient requiring less energy I don't know but it is not free with the now 180+ amp alternators in vehicles. I would be interested in doing a study on how much mechanical energy is required to run the electric driven components used in braking, suspension and now steering vs say a 60's car with its 40 amp alternator. Lets level the playing field and put a serpentine belt on both place them on a dyno and load the power consuming accessories.

Mikey

That's all been done, by engineers needing to reach seemingly impossible fuel economy and emissions standards using VERY large budgets and test equipment.

 

[salvageV6]

Just picture a powermaster steering system, then light up the Nittos away from that dealership.

 

[faster]

That's all been done, by engineers needing to reach seemingly impossible fuel economy and emissions standards using VERY large budgets and test equipment.

Yea, yea, yea automakers but comparable vehicles got better mileage 15-20 years ago then they do now because of no alky in the fuel. Saturn and others got low 40's easily, Volkswagen 5 speed TDI's got low 50's etc before alky additives... My shoe box shaped 1969 Plymouth Valiant with no overdrive got 24 mpg with 4 guys and all their stuff at 70 mph going back and forth to college and 20 around town all day. My dad's 55 Caddy got 22 mpg hwy and my 67 Caddy gets 16 all day city/hwy average if you drive with a light pedal. The heavy hitters in the Hot Rod Power Tour can get upwards of 25 mpg from monster inch motors in 55 Chevys that run single digits with steamroller tires towing a small trailer. My conversion van gets 16/17 hwy loaded on alky enriched fuel and 19/20 on non-alky fuel.

My point is we are chasing the wrong rabbits in vehicle efficiency.

We're getting hosed.

Mikey

 

[we4Mateo]

Yea, yea, yea automakers but comparable vehicles got better mileage 15-20 years ago then they do now because of no alky in the fuel. Saturn and others got low 40's easily, Volkswagen 5 speed TDI's got low 50's etc before alky additives... My shoe box shaped 1969 Plymouth Valiant with no overdrive got 24 mpg with 4 guys and all their stuff at 70 mph going back and forth to college and 20 around town all day. My dad's 55 Caddy got 22 mpg hwy and my 67 Caddy gets 16 all day city/hwy average if you drive with a light pedal. The heavy hitters in the Hot Rod Power Tour can get upwards of 25 mpg from monster inch motors in 55 Chevys that run single digits with steamroller tires towing a small trailer. My conversion van gets 16/17 hwy loaded on alky enriched fuel and 19/20 on non-alky fuel.

My point is we are chasing the wrong rabbits in vehicle efficiency.

We're getting hosed.

Mikey

None of those cars have crash structure and 9 airbags either. You're not comparing apples to apples. A new Dart weighs almost as much as a light TR. All things equal, you get better mpg by taking things off the motor. Fuel economy standards were easier then and crash safety was easier too. There's very little unused space in a modern car but all kids of empty cavities in old cars. The manufacturers only do what they have to. You don't see anyone beating their CAFE standards by leaps and bounds b/c it's so expensive to just make the requirements but they've always operated this way. It's amazing we get any fuel economy out of today's gas. And a lot of those old cars you mention weren't exactly power houses; they should be getting good mpg if properly tuned and driving easy. And your conversion van is a tank with bad aero, it should get what it gets. Bottom line, it takes x hp to push y pounds through the air with z resistance = fuel economy on any given fuel and displacement within reason.

 

[faster]

None of those cars have crash structure and 9 airbags either. You're not comparing apples to apples. A new Dart weighs almost as much as a light TR. All things equal, you get better mpg by taking things off the motor. Fuel economy standards were easier then and crash safety was easier too. There's very little unused space in a modern car but all kids of empty cavities in old cars. The manufacturers only do what they have to. You don't see anyone beating their CAFE standards by leaps and bounds b/c it's so expensive to just make the requirements but they've always operated this way. It's amazing we get any fuel economy out of today's gas. And a lot of those old cars you mention weren't exactly power houses; they should be getting good mpg if properly tuned and driving easy. And your conversion van is a tank with bad aero, it should get what it gets. Bottom line, it takes x hp to push y pounds through the air with z resistance = fuel economy on any given fuel and displacement within reason.

I agree with you on safety in new car construction that wasn't there years ago adding weight to them. I agree vehicles today have more performance than those of yesteryear car for car (far less fun factor though). I disagree about fuel consumption, I believe manufacturers are leaving a lot on the table with regards to fuel economy for future requirements, they are not playing all their cards. Today's ECM in cars is still stupid by today's computer standards and has been since their inception, they have always been light years behind. The ECM in class 8 trucks is light years ahead in fuel management ability. Before the low sulfur diesel anyone could get 10 mpg average out of an aero truck (I got 7+ average out of my 379 Peterbilt) at 13+ feet high, 8+ feet wide, 18 wheels, 80,000 lbs as long as I stayed 55 mph or less. Guys experimenting with aero were getting 15+ mpg at 80K lbs. At 65 mph I got 6 mpg but go over 65-67 mph and the mileage dropped like it fell off a cliff. Also had an aero T-600 Kenworth with the exact same drive line setup and got 1 mpg better at 65 mph and the same at 55 or less. Both were my trucks so there was no governor and I had the horsepower turned up to the max 550 hp and 1850 pd.ft torque. When I wanted to "play and run with the big dogs" my mileage dropped to 4 mpg or less. Today's low sulfur cut mileage by up to 40%. So are we really putting out less emissions all things considered with the crap fue both diesel and gas? I think not.

As to my shoe box van getting 13 city-17-19.5 hwy mpg I'm happy with that considering minivans with all their "aero" don't get much better at 17-24 mpg but have much less room. Consider you can buy a spectacular full size high end conversion van for $2500-$6000 (nobody wants them) and drive it for 3-6 years without major expense versus $25-30K+ for a comparably equipped new minis or $12-15K for a spectacular used one. Factor in insurance differences and financing and I drive the big van cheaper have much more room, safety and comfort plus I can pull my small 2 horse trailer with it.

Also aero is pretty much a mute point under 55 mph where the majority of people drive.

Mikey