Engineering was better then vs today....

eriknetherlands

Moderator
Site Donor
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
2,825
Location
Netherlands, Eindhoven area
It WAS better when we were young!

Youtube video claiming to test the connection rods of various bmw's and other cars under tension.
The 1969 BMW 1800 wins hands down, even when compared to a modern M5.
1729079229404.png

1729079316861.png


I know, i know. it's just overdesigned because they couldn't computer calculate it. A bit like the Roman bridges that still stand after 2000 years.

but you can still throw it into a conversation with your next generation that always talks about Ai being soo great....
 
Is tension critical with connecting rods? Definitely over designed as Eric mentions.
Engineering has improved with FEA to where it isn't required to over design.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't equate over-engineering with "better" engineering. Sub-optimal is sub-optimal, whichever side of perfection you are on. In the case cited, excessively heavy connecting rods limit top RPM, put unnecessary loads on the crankshaft and (most importantly in the 21st Century) detract from fuel mileage.
 
I wouldn't "engineer" the entertainment value out of this video. I think it was just someone that happened to have access to several interesting connecting rods and some big equipment, so... let's test these to failure and see what we get. :D I don't think they were arguing that new connecting rods are bad or poorly engineered, and I don't think they were suggesting everything should be 1968 heavy. As the owner of a 1968 BMW, I can now have an interesting story at dinner with friends. "Did you know that my connecting rods are stronger that those in your M5?"
 
I wouldn't "engineer" the entertainment value out of this video. I think it was just someone that happened to have access to several interesting connecting rods and some big equipment, so... let's test these to failure and see what we get. :D I don't think they were arguing that new connecting rods are bad or poorly engineered, and I don't think they were suggesting everything should be 1968 heavy. As the owner of a 1968 BMW, I can now have an interesting story at dinner with friends. "Did you know that my connecting rods are stronger that those in your M5?"
i tend to agree about engineering ... to me is it better manufacturing compared to less expensive manufacturing. certainly now there are various alloys used which are lighter, stronger or cheaper and some are easier to manufacture into certain components - so better is the operative word needing the correct word - is it better price, is it better lasting, is it better performance ... or what. in most automotive manufacturing, better price wins. in racing, its all about being light and strong.
 
I wouldn't equate over-engineering with "better" engineering. Sub-optimal is sub-optimal, whichever side of perfection you are on. In the case cited, excessively heavy connecting rods limit top RPM, put unnecessary loads on the crankshaft and (most importantly in the 21st Century) detract from fuel mileage.

I agree, it was likely suboptimal.
Your right about that point. The lighter a rotating mass can be without giving away the better.
 
Sorry or the long winded response here - but the premise here centers on a pet peeve of mine....

Engineering abilities today are WAY better than they used to be.
We know more about materials.
We know more about intended function.
We know more about how to design and assemble things.
We have WAY better tools to do just about everything we do.
We also have NO desire these days to take any risk... (but that is another story in itself).

The thing is that knowing more doesn't mean you get a 'better' product. It's all about how you use the knowledge and abilities you have to satisfy your requirements.

Example -
The B-17 was built and designed using state of the art materials and processes as they were in the mid 1930's.
It was also very overbuilt for its mission (or at least that we thought it 'needed to be'). But that 'over engineered' aspect ended up being what it became most known for.

During WWII - The amount of combat damage that airplane could absorb and make it home was amazing.
If we built an airplane using the same engines and general materials today - we would build a plane that flies faster, higher, longer, carries more and all the measurable attributes. But- I bet it would NOT be as durable or robust as the B-17 was. We didn't know it at the time, but those aspects of its design ended up being a huge benefit for that plane. Other planes - maybe ones that had less design margin, but flew farther, higher, faster and such - didn't fair as well in combat..

I had a neighbor who was a waist gunner in WWII on B-17's. Knowing I worked on planes (as an engineer) - he was very happy to share many of his stories of his time in the USAAF. His stories were awesome. He passed away in the mid 1990's. His widow stayed in the house next to mine - we helped her (with her adult kids) looking after her and helped out with things that she needed. She remarried a few years later - to an awesome man who was a tail gunner in a B-24. GO figure... LOL
Husband #2 wished he flew in the B-17... as opposed to the 24. The scuttlebutt that he lived in (during WWII) was that the Boeing plane was more likely to get you home when things went south than the more 'delicate' Consolidated B-24.

Back to the engineering thing.... and BMW's...
I recall having a discussion with my father about doing a transmission fluid change in his E32. I recommended doing so.
The next time he was at the dealer, he asked about doing it - and was told that the fluid was 'lifetime' fill for that car (and the dealer refused to do that service).
He called me when he got back and told me what the dealer told him. I asked how long 'lifetime' is - he didn't know. I said - from BMW's perspective that is the life of the warranty and that I still recommended he have that service done. But - he was trusting on what the dealer said. He didn't get the fluid changed. As such, the transmission failed a few years later. He fixed the car and sold it when he got his E38 (that I have currently - with 245k - including two transmission services - LOL).

OK - back to your regularly scheduled program. :)
 
Funny that ZF years later suggested fluid changes for the transmissions. Statute of Limitations issue?
 
I know that @sfdon loves engines, but very few have spent their whole life in this space.

In 1986 I started my career as a (diesel) engine development engineer, and 9 months later I had my own test cell, an Eddie current dynamometer, and two incredible ex-Vietnam vet test technicians. We could make that engine sing music, and we played our role with the launch of a brand-new center-line engine. The company is one that you all would know and respect. 25 years later I had 2500 engineers reporting to me, an engine engineer’s engineer, and 10 years after when I retired as the president of the company missing my engineering days, and sick of corporate politics!

In 35+ years, I participated or lead 4 clean sheet/new bore center programs, multiple displacement engine programs; horrendous number of emission reduction programs, cost reduction programs, quality programs, ratings, and such. My hair turned gray quick. Classic cars kept me going.

When I started, we had 9,000+ engineers, when I ended, we had 2,100. When I started we had 2 engine families, when I ended we had 6 families. Computers, simulation, better instrumentation, better modeling, and shorter timelines, and a ton of pressure. Too many bean counters even in the best US company. And the worst: The darn consultants running around telling our bosses stuff they knew nothing about.

When I started the chief engineer had 2 secretaries, parked his car inside the building, and someone washed it. He loved cars and owned a 930, an SL gullwing, and an e-type. The guys in the machine shop used to build parts for his e-type all the time! They called it “G-job” or “Government jobs”. The managers went out for lunch, smoke in their offices, didn’t need to respond to 300 emails, text messages, cell calls, or fly coach to India. And usually retired with a pension.

Yeah…different world back then!

In 1987 we were developing this incredible 900 bar (13,000psi) fuel system for our diesels, when I retired we were running 2,500 bar/36,500 psi high pressure fuel system with multiple shot and rate shaping. Today’s engine weigh less, produce 1% the emission, 50% better fuel consumption, no need for choke, reliable, etc.

Do I like old cars and engines? No, I love them!! I can work on them, I can repair them, they are serviceable, they are easy to work. My daily driver is 12 years old, I don’t like new cars.

There is so much that goes just in the bore/stroke ratio, the size of the rod, the type of piston, w/wo skirt, rings, masses, how much we want to allow blow-by, how about liner/cylinder scoffing, how much oil we need on the walls, ..., what about at the end of the useful emissions life, ...

Wishing everyone a great day/night! :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top