AD #1868 – Delphi to Test 3D Printed Components, Uber Jumps Into Autonomy, How the New CAFE Standards Work

May 20th, 2016 at 11:49am

Runtime: 8:32

To watch this episode on YouTube click here.

- AT&T Touts In-Car Wi-Fi in New Ad
- Toyota Surpasses 9 Million Hybrid Sales
- Delphi to Test 3D Printed Components
- Uber Jumps Into Autonomy
- Infiniti Launches Technician Training Program
- How the New CAFE Standards Work

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:

26 Comments to “AD #1868 – Delphi to Test 3D Printed Components, Uber Jumps Into Autonomy, How the New CAFE Standards Work”

  1. Brett Says:

    Why does Uber’s autonomous Ford Fusion remind me of Dr. Seuss?

  2. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I have a “connected” car with the wifi hot spot, and if I were to name the feature I value the least, that would be it. If I had a car full of kids, though, I guess it would be nice, until you have to pay for the 25G of data from that road trip a couple weeks ago.

  3. G.A.Branigan Says:

    2025 cafe standards.I can’t help but think that our oversized pickups will become even bigger.After all,the cafe standards is why they are so damn big now.

  4. Kit Gerhart Says:

    3 Yep, I find it rather disgusting that they seem to be actively encouraging the building of oversize vehicles.

  5. Jim Sawyer Says:

    To #3 and #4: No one is forcing anyone to buy what you call oversize vehicles. People want to buy them even if they don’t need to buy them. It’s the flip side of the EV coin (with the exception of the 9 million Priuses out there). By the lights of some people might “need” to buy them, but theu don want to buy them.

  6. Kit Gerhart Says:

    From what I’ve read at multiple sources, these CAFE rules DO encourage manufactures to make bigger vehicles. It they made Corvettes 4 inches wider, they could get worse mpg, and still do their part toward complying with CAFE. Am I missing something here, Sean?

  7. Chuck Grenci Says:

    Some nebulous explanations from the EPA; hard to hit a target when it keeps changing in size and location. I finding it hard to see the actual goal of the 2025 standard.

  8. Brett Says:

    Doing away with the S-10, Ranger, et all. rather forced people to buy oversized vehicles, no?

    The same craven calculation that they could force loyal Ford owners to buy a more profitable full sized pickup truck if they got rid of the smaller truck they made, also found them reducing and/or eliminating the towing capacity rating on the Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis/Town Car to force buyers into more profitable Expeditions, Explorers, and full-sized pickups.

  9. Roger T Says:

    So we’ll all be driving humongous plastic church vans in the 2030s. 60mpg Honda Fit seems like a bigger challenge than 30mpg Silverado

  10. Rob Says:

    Toyota saving 6.5B gallons of gas. Per year? Or since 1997? Sure seems like a lot until you realize the world consumes about 95 Billion barrels of oil a DAY (almost 4 trillion gallons per day). Its still a good thing but worldwide consumption continues to grow with development of countries in Asia etc.
    Would be great if the developing countries build infrastructure to support electric cars as they grow and plan for the future.

  11. Kit Gerhart Says:

    10 An even bigger increase in energy consumption than cars, is electricity for air conditioning, as many more millions of people in developing countries can afford it.

  12. GRP Says:

    With Uber and everyone else getting into autonomous cars, I just had a brainstorm that would really accelerate the development. Let’s go back to the heyday of NASCAR when automakers and sponsors developed all kinds of new technology for the racing programs that made their way into the everyday cars that we all drove. What if NASCAR had 2 or 3 races a year with autonomous cars? I’m not talking about some anemic EV or hybrid, I talking about a fire breathing 800 HP race ready car. You manage to win a race on say one of the road courses with the high speeds with no driver, now you have something. It would be a hoot to watch. It might take a few years before they get good enough before we stop laughing. It would never replace the unpredictability that we enjoy from real drivers, but you know for sure, someone would be trying to write code for an algorithm to get the car in front loose :)

  13. bradley Says:

    I recall McLaren (or someone) had F1 vehicles go around race tracks without a driver a while back.

  14. Kit Gerhart Says:

    12 If they could do an autonomous NASCAR race, even at 90% of the usual average speed, with 90% of the cars running at the end, I would be very impressed. Will they use pneumatics, or servo motors to work the shifter and clutch?

    An autonomous F1 race would be even more impressive, if 3/4 of the cars got through the first lap.

  15. fstfwrd Says:

    And, at the end of the race, we could have robots punch it out.

  16. G.A.Branigan Says:

    Here’s some food for thought in regards to autonomous vehicles.

  17. Chuck Grenci Says:

    G.A., hadn’t thought of that aspect; thanks for sharing. Everyone else, read the link, it’s not that long and very germane to the discussion about the autonomous vehicle (and their future).

  18. Kit Gerhart Says:

    16, 17 The use of autonomous vehicles by terrorists is an obvious possibility, but might be easier to prevent than a regular vehicle driven be a suicidal maniac.

    Americanthinker is a right wing site with contributors like Anne Coulter. Would that make them especially concerned about autonomous cars being used in bad ways?

  19. Chuck Grenci Says:

    No matter the source, I believe that the threat could be real (and will need to be considered). Is it a deal-breaker, no, but I’d like to see how ‘they’ may use some safeguards to counter the possibilities.

  20. G.A.Branigan Says:

    Right wing/left wing….does it really matter? When autonomous vehicles are common place,the threat becomes real regardless of politics.Instead of being polarized one way or the other,just use common sense.

  21. Kit Gerhart Says:

    When autonomous vehicles exist, they will be registered, as other cars. If the “authorities” know that people suspected of terrorist intent have them, they might be able to access trip programming. If, say, a suspected terrorist sends his van from his garage in Newark to Times Square on a Friday night, the “authorities” might be able to cancel the trip, like Onstar can stop a car. Just a thought, but that’s why I think actual drivers with ill intent might be more of a threat.

    As far as right wing/left wing, I don’t know if it matters, but Rolling Stone, and to my knowledge, The Nation havn’t had articles about the threat of terrorists with autonomous cars.

  22. Rob Says:

    I would consider autonomous cars to be a possible tool but not a threat. The terrorists are the threat and figuring out who they are and what they are doing is the challenge not stifling progress. We created planes and they were used to destroy the towers, We created cars and they have been used as car bombs. The technology is readily available for a remote controlled car no need to wait for autonomy. As the terrorists continue to pursue way to kill people they will use anything available to them. Finding them is the key not creating laws to regulate developing technology and slowly removing our freedoms.

  23. Brett Says:

    By all means, let’s worry about autonomous vehicles in the hands of terrorists instead of examining what our policies are that might’ve created the terrorists in the first place.

  24. Ukendoit Says:

    The argument postulated in the article was, “It is not clear if the self-driving car designers are looking at the malevolent use of this technology”. It sounds like the authors have no automotive knowledge, so they should have done some research before writing an article on “what-ifs”. It has already been reported here that the manufacturers are aware of the entry points for “malevolent use” and have even been patching known issues and looking for other problems. I don’t think the “bomb-laden autonomous cars” will be nearly as potential a threat since they will be expensive. The terrorists could much easier find a young, dumb guy to convince to drive, or purchase many, many, more exploding drones and remote controlled bomb-carts for less cost.
    The cheap, easier threat still exists though of terrorists just creating havoc by hacking in and controlling random person’s vehicles to cause crashes. That said, autonomy is supposed to save 30,000 lives each year and $450Billion/year. Running the risk of sounding callous, the lives and costs saved now would be worth the possible risk of maybe some terrorist figuring out and executing a few deaths somewhere.

  25. Ukendoit Says:

    You can click on my name to see an opposing article entitled, “Don’t Fear the Robot Car Bomb”.
    As I have said on here before, I am all for autonomy. There are many people on the road that should not have licenses. People can’t even figure out how to operate our current V2V system for manually showing the vehicle’s intent (the humble turn signal). Even if computers aren’t perfect, they will be better. I enjoy driving, but I don’t see autonomy as a threat to me and I believe there will always be room for the driving enthusiast. I see the V2V interface and autonomous driving as something that will save lives, clear up traffic congestion, and make it easier for me to drive (and sit back and enjoy the scenery on long trips).

  26. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I would have preferred to have autonomy a majority of the time, during the 1100 mile road trip I just took from Florida to Indiana. Also, I suspect it would be better to share the road with autonomous vehicles, than with many of today’s drivers.