Auto parts that should be standardized by now

patgizz wrote:

irish44j wrote: lug patterns, at least for typical passenger cars. There is no reason why cars all more or less the same size need to have 9 different bolt patterns in metric and SAE, depending on brand, continent of origin, etc. At most, there should be two: a standardized 4-bolt for subcompacts and other stuff that use tiny wheels, and a standardized 5-bolt for everything else.

how about that i had 2 caravans, same body style 1 year apart, different bolt patterns.

How can you have a problem with this? I love it. With those van parts I can play around with roll centers and have CHOICE of two common bolt patterns on a huge number of cars. Yeah. You wana run 114.3 on your daytona, or your Spirit. Just swing by the yard and BOLT it up. .

Nothing really beats the platform sharing of the K cars. Those cars are really like legos. They are the essence of this thread. Please don't disparage new interchangeable blocks in the Lego box

Will wrote:

novaderrik wrote: the Thunderbird was built on a totally different chassis than the Mustang. they used some similar parts on some things, but for the most part they are totally different cars. but the stuff that is the same- like the wheel bearings- are the same because they are a standardized part within the wheel bearing industry. i don't know their methodology for picking wheel bolt patterns and wheel stud diameters- maybe they didn't want people sticking old Cragars on the sleek new Thunderbirds and Lincolns- but i'm sure they do have some logic behind it.

I know the MN12 and SN95 platforms are totally different. I have SN95 hubs and wheels on my Supercoupe. The conversion is easy, and gave me a ton of new wheel choices. But why make it necessary? I've heard the same rumor you mention about Ford not wanting people to put those old 5x4.5 wheels on the T-Bird. But if that were the case, I have to believe they would have done the same thing with the SN95, since they were changing from 4-lug Fox bodies to 5-lug anyway.

they probably kept the 5X4.5 bolt pattern- and the 1/2" studs, oddly enough. they are probably the only SAE fasteners on the cars- on the Mustang for wheel fitment in the hands of enthusiasts.. that is the same bolt pattern that Ford has used since, like, forever- and even on the Ford GT supercar from a while back..

i think the Corvette still uses the 5X4.75 bolt pattern, but the new Camaros and what not all use a slightly smaller metric bolt pattern that is the same as BMW's and what not..

In reply to PHeller:

Imagine if all manufacturers had to compete in say a challenge once a year where the budget was 10x the year. The $20,130 Challenge.

The gas filler location complaint baffles me. Is filling up that confusing, that big a hassle? I can count on one hand the number of times that has inconvenienced me. If there isn't an arrow by the fuel gauge, you can usually see the fill door in your side mirror. BFD.

Nuts and bolts. Do we really still need both metric and SAE?

Alan Cesar wrote: The gas filler location complaint baffles me. Is filling up that confusing, that big a hassle? I can count on one hand the number of times that has inconvenienced me. If there isn't an arrow by the fuel gauge, you can usually see the fill door in your side mirror. BFD.

Actually, it isn't the filler door that is the complaint really, it is the ignorant drivers that can't drive when you know what side of the vehicle YOUR door is on. Top that off with certain stations, I'm looking at you, PILOT, that attempt to make you enter one way and exit on the other.

To the original topic at hand, berkeley standardization. What fun is there in being the exact same????

ronholm wrote:

patgizz wrote:

irish44j wrote: lug patterns, at least for typical passenger cars. There is no reason why cars all more or less the same size need to have 9 different bolt patterns in metric and SAE, depending on brand, continent of origin, etc. At most, there should be two: a standardized 4-bolt for subcompacts and other stuff that use tiny wheels, and a standardized 5-bolt for everything else.

how about that i had 2 caravans, same body style 1 year apart, different bolt patterns.

How can you have a problem with this? I love it. With those van parts I can play around with roll centers and have CHOICE of two common bolt patterns on a huge number of cars. Yeah. You wana run 114.3 on your daytona, or your Spirit. Just swing by the yard and BOLT it up. . Nothing really beats the platform sharing of the K cars. Those cars are really like legos. They are the essence of this thread. Please don't disparage new interchangeable blocks in the Lego box

because the dicks at chrysler deemed that i needed to buy new tires for the van that had junk tires on 15" wheels, because my 14" wheels and brand new tires would not go on the van that was exactly the same and one year newer?

i think it's stupid. so are K cars.

Kenny_McCormic wrote: If gas fillers should be standardized, they should be on the back.

they used to be. too many people got squashed by cars coming in hot or looking behind them to see if they were lined up with the pump while moving forward.

Ranger50 wrote: To the original topic at hand, berkeley standardization. What fun is there in being the exact same????

There are some very good reasons not to standardize all sorts of parts. However, I fail to see one bad thing that will happen if we standardize lugnut seat style.

How about manufacturers that put weird-sized heads on their bolts? I broke a caliper mounting bolt on my MR2. Found plenty of replacement bolts at the hardware store, but because Toyota specified a smaller-than-standard head size for that bolt, I now need 2 wrenches to remove the caliper on one side of the car.

Duke wrote: Any and all electrical connectors.

As well as wiring color codes and terminal designations. And fuse size...

sachilles wrote: Nuts and bolts. Do we really still need both metric and SAE?

Hey, it's coming. We're going to be all metric around 1979 or so.

One more thing: Tire pressure monitoring systems , like we really need them in the first place.

Will wrote:

Ranger50 wrote: To the original topic at hand, berkeley standardization. What fun is there in being the exact same????

There are some very good reasons not to standardize all sorts of parts. However, I fail to see one bad thing that will happen if we standardize lugnut seat style. How about manufacturers that put weird-sized heads on their bolts? I broke a caliper mounting bolt on my MR2. Found plenty of replacement bolts at the hardware store, but because Toyota specified a smaller-than-standard head size for that bolt, I now need 2 wrenches to remove the caliper on one side of the car.

I would have just replaced all of the bolts. Or replace the replacement with a new factory one when I get a chance.

Jus sayin'

I fail to see why cars are remodeled every year or every couple of years. Car manufacturers spend millions retooling redesigning for little or no improvement other than cosmetic. Safety is the exception, the body style of the car doesn't need to be changed to put in side curtain air bags, they just install in the seats. The completely unrecognizable new style of Camry every 4 years is really not necessary It's a friggin Camry no one buys those things because they look cool, they buy them because it's features and brand name, same as a refrigerator.

Look at all the iconic cars, that were made for 15 years+, Model T, Bug, NSX, Mini, Morgan... they just had the little things improved on. All of the manufacturers need to make a pact to just make a good car and stick with it 15 years. Build the most advanced car you can for your time and watch the price of not retooling every year pay the difference. If there is not a new car from the competing company then there is no reason to change the design from dropping car sales. They wouldn't have to add 50HP to the Corvette to up the competitions' 600HP this year and so on.

Then look at the aftermarket that will come from it. If each company only has five cars sharing parts bins, you won't need interchangeable knuckles. You will have every choice of wheel offered for every car from the aftermarket suppliers they will be able to keep up with the changes.

patgizz wrote:

ronholm wrote:

patgizz wrote:

irish44j wrote: lug patterns, at least for typical passenger cars. There is no reason why cars all more or less the same size need to have 9 different bolt patterns in metric and SAE, depending on brand, continent of origin, etc. At most, there should be two: a standardized 4-bolt for subcompacts and other stuff that use tiny wheels, and a standardized 5-bolt for everything else.

how about that i had 2 caravans, same body style 1 year apart, different bolt patterns.

How can you have a problem with this? I love it. With those van parts I can play around with roll centers and have CHOICE of two common bolt patterns on a huge number of cars. Yeah. You wana run 114.3 on your daytona, or your Spirit. Just swing by the yard and BOLT it up. . Nothing really beats the platform sharing of the K cars. Those cars are really like legos. They are the essence of this thread. Please don't disparage new interchangeable blocks in the Lego box

because the dicks at chrysler deemed that i needed to buy new tires for the van that had junk tires on 15" wheels, because my 14" wheels and brand new tires would not go on the van that was exactly the same and one year newer? i think it's stupid. so are K cars.

how would Chrysler know that you would want to put a spare set of wheels that you have laying around on your mini van a couple of decades after they engineered the damn thing? i'm sure if they knew that it would inconcenience you like that, they would have just kept everything the same..

the "one year newer" thing makes sense.. they either found a good engineering reason to go with the bigger bolt pattern- like bigger brakes, which is a good thing- or they got a better deal on those hubs, rotors, and wheels going forward.. maybe the bigger bolt pattern was a part of an HD suspension option the year before and they decided to streamline things by just going with that pattern going forward..

and weren't the original Chysler minivans the same 4 bolt pattern as every other K car deriviative when they first came out- so they had to make a change from 4 wheel studs to 5 somewhere along the line, which they did for the sole purpose of aggravating people and giving them something to complain about on the internet when it became popular a decade and a half later..

this whole thread is just people complaining about stuff that really makes sense once you stop to think about it..

corytate wrote:

ransom wrote: Filler cap in the same location-ish. Having cars have to go two directions through a gas station is stupid.

I hate this. Nissan has them on two different sides of the car for the same model year (different models of course) always have to look before I gas something up at work. I think I figured it out though: made in japan cars have it on the right side, made in usa cars on the left side (aka most of their cars) This really should be standardized though. I think lights should definitely be standardized as well

if you look at the fuel gauge in the car, there is usually a little arrow pointing to which side the filler is on.

Also, I've had several japanese cars with it on the left side.

I've got two Fords. One with the filler on the right (SC), one on the left (E150). I can usually remember which is which. After almost 30 years of driving, I've never noticed the arrows before, but sure enough both of them have it.

dj wrote: In reply to PHeller: Imagine if all manufacturers had to compete in say a challenge once a year where the budget was 10x the year. The $20,130 Challenge.

hell yes.

Toyman01 wrote: I've got two Fords. One with the filler on the right (SC), one on the left (E150). I can usually remember which is which. After almost 30 years of driving, I've never noticed the arrows before, but sure enough both of them have it.

none of my cars have arrows.. i just get used to whichever one i'm driving..

novaderrik wrote: .... this whole thread is just people complaining about stuff that really makes sense once you stop to think about it..

I agree just about everything everyone is saying/complaining in this thread is making really good sense. Car manufactures need to get their E36 M3 together and start listening to this board!

It seems my European cars all had the filler on the right (Rabbit, 240, E36, E46, and Elise), and all of my Japanese cars have had the filler on the left. The only North American car I've owned was my C4 -- and the filler was in the centre (which was super-sweet)!

irish44j wrote:

corytate wrote:

ransom wrote: Filler cap in the same location-ish. Having cars have to go two directions through a gas station is stupid.

I hate this. Nissan has them on two different sides of the car for the same model year (different models of course) always have to look before I gas something up at work. I think I figured it out though: made in japan cars have it on the right side, made in usa cars on the left side (aka most of their cars) This really should be standardized though. I think lights should definitely be standardized as well

if you look at the fuel gauge in the car, there is usually a little arrow pointing to which side the filler is on. Also, I've had several japanese cars with it on the left side.

I meant made in japan nissan/infiniti cars only, but my theory was disproved yesterday when I gassed up a new Sentra. made in america, filler on the right side=/

VW is working on it....

http://www.newsday.com/classifieds/cars/volkswagen-mqb-could-vault-automaker-past-toyota-1.4622234

novaderrik wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: I've got two Fords. One with the filler on the right (SC), one on the left (E150). I can usually remember which is which. After almost 30 years of driving, I've never noticed the arrows before, but sure enough both of them have it.

none of my cars have arrows.. i just get used to whichever one i'm driving..

supposedly if you look at the pump icon on your fuel gage.. the filler part is on the same side as the opening