On 09-19-97 Jim Dunmyer wrote to Roy J. Tellason... 
 JD> Absolutely not true, Roy. I've seen many articles in Popular Mechanics 
 JD> over  
 JD> the years, detailing how those sensors work, how to  
 JD> troubleshoot them with relatively low-tech equipment (a  
 JD> test light and DVM in many cases), and so on. You can buy a  
 JD> shop manual for an individual car for around $50.00, and  
 JD> they have quite a lot of detail on the engine-control systems. 
... 
 JD> That's because they finally have computers that actually  
 JD> control about everything on the engine, so there's a lot  
 JD> less plumbing and hoses strewn about. And it all WORKS; ... 
Fur sure Jim; One problem I see is that as the sensor age, can 
the computer tell one is not reading correctly?  The car guys on 
PBS will talk about swapping out sensor stuff, but that can get 
very expensive very fast.  Even so, as you suggest, they are 
very efficient. perhaps the milage is worth it. 
 
But, in 20 years, you won't find any 1990 antiques on the road; 
the deterioration of the plastic parts will be so onerous to go 
after to replace, and so critical to functioning, they wont. 
 
I heard the death knell of the IC vehicle power plant; they've 
applied computer chip plasma vapor deposition to batteries, and 
now have a lead cell with *twenty* times the power density. the 
range goes from 75 to 1500 miles/charge.  They also have designed 
charging controller chips to make sure the cells are not damaged 
by excessive charge rates, line spikes, etc. 
 
NASA tech review has another rap about vastly cheaper fuel cells, 
with high density, but lower output/minute.  Practical cars will 
probly use a mix, lead for passing or even takeoff. 
 
When it will really take off, is from the starting line at a drag 
race; the electric motors are getting much lighter, and with one 
on *each* wheel, you wont get the smoke from the rear, but you 
will get the 1/4 in the shortest elapsed time. 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.58 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------