AD #1950 – McLaren Denies Apple Rumors, ZF Develops 4-Wheel Steer for Pickups, New Player Emerges in the EV Game

September 22nd, 2016 at 11:47am

Runtime: 7:40

To watch this episode on YouTube click here.

- McLaren Denies Apple Rumors
- Vacuum Maker Sucks Up Aston Martin Developer
- EV Startup Says It’s Better Than Tesla
- How Clean Are EVs?
- ZF Develops 4-Wheel Steer for Big Pickups
- NHTSA Adopts SAE Autonomous Definitions
- Classic Car Market Cooling Off

Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone , Dow Automotive Systems and Lear Corporation

»Subscribe to Podcast | iTunes | RSS | Listen on Phone Stitcher | YouTube

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website: WardsAuto.com

15 Comments to “AD #1950 – McLaren Denies Apple Rumors, ZF Develops 4-Wheel Steer for Pickups, New Player Emerges in the EV Game”

  1. Buzzed Says:

    4 wheel steering – you know why it has never taken off? Cause almost no ones interested! No one is thinking while parking their truck ” gee, I really wish they could add an overly complex steering system to my truck so I don’t have to back up 4 feet”.

  2. Lisk Says:

    1) 4WS compensates for engineers not designing smaller footprint trucks to do the same job their predecessors did 20 years ago.

  3. Buzzed Says:

    @lisk- the engineers are just giving what the public wants.

  4. Bob de Kruyff Says:

    Are you sure you have the correct McLaren? Years ago McLaren was split in two with the little known Engineering group still in existence working on breakthrough automotive technologies not related to racing venues.

  5. John McElroy Says:

    4WS is fantastic to drive. It’s not just about easier parking, though that’s a big plus. It’s also about maneuvering in tight construction sites. It’s about making emergency lane changes with minimum sway. It’s about towing trailers with no sway whatsoever, and making it much easier to back up with a trailer (you don’t steer in the opposite direction). And it’s not complicated. All it takes is an electric steering rack, two steering knuckles, and some software to run it.

  6. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Does the back end of these 4WS trucks sideswipe nearby vehicles or other objects that are near the outside of the turn?

  7. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Do they have redundant motors and electronics for the 4WS? I assume that there is no mechanical link of any kind to the steering wheel.

  8. Drew Says:

    I like the idea of 4WS on large trucks and SUVs. But the price limited the market, and the packaging/bundling further limited the market. The space behind the wheels for the earlier GM 4WS effort is now consumed by the more outboard placement of the shock absorbers (more controlled ride motions).

    Regarding NHTSA adopting SAE definitions, NHTSA should go all the way – partner with SAE for all autonomous standards. As a taxpayer and a consumer in the transportation sector, I cringe at the thought of our government either second guessing SAE or staffing up for redundant engineering from SAE’s. In other words, I can’t ever imagine our government getting ahead of the technology.

  9. Drew Says:

    I also recall the GM 4WS system required a wider rear track… so much wider that it required dualie-like side clearance lamps and a unique box side outer. These uniquely tooled parts contributed to the high price.

  10. Kelly Holden Says:

    The QuadSteer was a great option although expensive. I’ve never undertood why the supplier doesn’t target the coach builders.
    Stretch Limo’s would really benefit from it more then trucks

  11. Bob de Kruyff Says:

    I have a problem with NHTSA adopting SAE procedures and standards. SAE committees very often have self serving agendas that don’t always represent the automakers nor what is best for the consumer. There is very little or no ability for public interaction and input. At least NHTSA has a mandated process for public review and input.

  12. Drew Says:

    Bob, NHTSA may have a mandate for public comment, but most of those comments come from special interest groups and do little to fill the huge technical void of a kibitzer (vs. a doer). Besides, nothing prevents NHTSA from seeking public input when/if they work cooperatively with the SAE.

  13. Ziggy Says:

    John,
    In regards to the 4WS for trucks, you mention that ZF thinks it can cut the price of the system but you don’t mention by how much or what a final price as an option would be. How much is ZF estimating it will cost for the truck buyer that might be interested in it?

  14. Kit Gerhart Says:

    $6K for 4WS would be only 10% of the price of a typical Suburban, or “loaded” pickup truck. Those who realky want it would pay the price. It seemed that when GM offered 4WS a few years ago, not that many people wanted it. It’s cost would have been a higher percentage of the vehicle cost, though.

  15. FSTFWRD Says:

    #8 Drew

    “Regarding NHTSA adopting SAE definitions, NHTSA should go all the way – partner with SAE for all autonomous standards. As a taxpayer and a consumer in the transportation sector, I cringe at the thought of our government either second guessing SAE or staffing up for redundant engineering from SAE’s. In other words, I can’t ever imagine our government getting ahead of the technology.”

    Well said, I couldn’t agree more.