(first posted 11/10/2011) The questions of global commodity shortages, overpopulation, and resource depletion may be back in the spotlight a bit, but are hardly new. In 1972, the book Limits to Growth, rocked the world, and became the best selling and most influential book of its kind. The general mood of the time, which in Europe included radical politics, and the energy crisis of 1973 all weighed very heavily on the future of the automobile.
Limits of Growth strongly implied that there would not be cars (as then known) at some point in the 21st century. Needless to say, companies like Porsche (and the whole Italian carrozzeria/sports car industry) were pretty freaked out. Porsche took the threat seriously, and invested considerable resources to develop a prototype Long-Life Auto, the FLA (Forschungsprojekt-Langzeit-Auto). A 75 hp hatchback that looks like a late seventies Subaru, it was anything but a typical Porsche.
The FLA’s main goal was to explore materials and construction techniques to create a vehicle that would have exceptional longevity. In the early seventies, when cars rusted away and wore out all-too quickly, that certainly seemed like a goal worth pursuing. Materials for the body were chosen both for corrosion resistance, as well as for ease of recycling. Curiously, the FLA never received its outer skin, which could have been aluminum or stainless steel. All manner of details for long life were addressed, even the wiring system was split into multiple looms for ease of future replacement. Now that would make restorers happy.
The power train was also designed for maximum life, with a very detuned 2.5 liter engine making 75 hp, and hooked to a three-speed automatic for minimum wear. Large oil reservoirs meant long intervals between oil changes, or perhaps just guarding against oil depletion?
There’s not a lot of detailed info still available, but it looks like the engine is in the typical Porsche location, and from the looks of those Fuchs wheels, I suspect that for obvious practical reasons, the FLA was heavily based on the 911, including the engine.
The whole subject is a royal downer, and not one humans are inclined to dwell on for any length of time. Porsche got the message, and their pendulum quickly swung the other way. In 1975 they introduced the 911 Turbo, their contribution to using up the world’s oil resources just a wee bit faster.
But the legacy of the FLA was not totally lost: the first truly corrosion-resistant steel bodies were introduced by Porsche (and Audi) shortly after, and the number of vintage 911s still on the road is a testament to the long-life characteristics of the brand. Resource depletion may (or may not) be just around the next bend, but who wants to oversteer through it with a 75 hp hair-shirt Porsche?
Maybe when they put the skin on, that B pillar looked too much like a Pacer.
There are no limits to growth, just limits to stupid growth.
http://blog.roadandtrack.com/porsche-boxster-e-prototypes/
It does look a lot like a pacer from the front.
I thought Pacer, too! Maybe once it has the skin on it, it would look different, but it looks very close to the Pacer in this form. See, even Porsche knew that this design was only necessarily unless it was total Armageddon…..too bad that AMC didn’t realize that, as well. 🙂
Looks a whole lot like this:
Exactly what I was thinking, and probably why the article now mentions it! Wonder if the FLA was in the back, or the front, of the Subaru designers’ minds when penning this shape?
Ironic given the Subaru’s corrosion resistance.
Thanks for digging this up, Paul. I have always wondered what happened to that concept, since I read about it in the mid-80’s. (I collected old car mags already then, so I must’ve read it in a magazine from the 70’s.) I have always wanted to know more, but as you said, there’s little to know, and I didn’t even remember what it was called.
But I will continue to believe the concept is profoundly sound. I would gladly pay a premium for a product I could be sure wasn’t designed for planned obsolesence. And therein lies the paradox, if the carmakers would make a lasting car, they would go out of business.
Exactly! Forever car = lost profits. My brother’s buddy was hired by Ford (as an engineer) to redesign the starters… the problem? They lasted “too long” which meant Ford was losing money on replacement parts! In fact, at the time Porsche designed their “20 year car”, the rumour was that it was killed, for that very reason: you can’t make money on durable, long-lasting vehicles. Of course, the official Porsche rationale was: technology changes, so a car SHOULDN’T last two decades. My rejoinder: airplanes last for 40 years of more: the motors and avionics are merely updated, whilst the basic airframe is re-used and repaired… Why not use the same system for automobiles?
Good point, Jeff. Here in New England there are a number of locomotives still in everyday service that were built in the 50s. There are granite-block railroad viaducts that are 100 years older than that. My little house was built in the 20s, with a sturdier structure than a million-dollar McMansion would have today. The longevity of a machine is determined by cultural attitudes, both in how it’s built and in how much future generations appreciate its qualities.
Airplanes can make money when designed that way because airplanes are jammed as full of passengers (and later, freight) as possible and flown near-constantly to try to eke out a profit above the cost of ownership…cars are parked most of the time and almost every owner loses money on them. (Taxicabs, of course, are the exception, which is why so many of them are Panthers, which quit evolving a long time ago.)
Personally, a “20 year car” does appeal to me.
Appeals to me too. I managed 25 years out of a Cortina – who knows what I’d manage with a Porsche designed for long life? 🙂
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/car-of-a-lifetime-1974-ford-cortina-living-beyond-the-design-brief/
While airplanes & locomotives usually serve cost/benefit motives alone, extending the life of popular, durable models like the DC-3 & SD-40, for many or maybe most consumers, cars are about ego needs & not merely transportation. Evidence: The continual flaming of “boring” Toyota sedans on this site. So while pollsters might hear people SAY they are all for sustainability etc., what they wind up buying at the dealer tells a very different story, for Buyers are Liars.
Anti-industrial romanticism in developed countries requires a lot of capital investment & technology.
It has to be possible to design for both robust quality and reliability, and interesting dynamics. Maybe it can’t be done as cheaply. Or, maybe, Toyota’s design ethic just doesn’t include driving excitement. I’ve read (here and/or elsewhere) that Toyota in fact did not attend to driving feel in the past, but is intent now on upping its game.
The highest time DC-3 has over 91,000 hours on it’s airframe. It’s gone thru over 200 engines and is still doing occasional flight duty.
At some point in the ’60s or ’70s I saw a Volvo print ad with the headline, “Volvos last a long time. Isn’t that bad for business?” Naturally, the body copy went into why Volvo thought it was good for business in the long term.
This is another perfect example of how hard it is sometimes to plan for the future in the auto industry, Your essential laying millions on the craps table hoping you guessed on what people would want 4 years into the future. This why I always give GM some sympathy when people bitch about the way to downsized cars from the 80’s, they were planned for a future that never came, pick up a car magazine from the late 70’s or early 80’s and read about how bleak everyone thought the future was going to be, $3.00 a gallon gas by 1985, fuel rationing, increase crash and mpg standards, everyone was freaked.
MAyor Depasto!!!!!
Carmine..to my friends.
Create a vehicle with exceptional longevity? Howabout a Model A Ford? Or maybe a 72 Valiant with a galvanized body.
I was going to say how about an earlier model, until I looked at a picture of a 72 Valiant and realised in the US they were the earlier model continued, unlike here where we had a new model for 71. That 67-76 run must be one of the longest surely? I did note the change in wheelbase but really that was just dropping the Valiant wheelbase and continuing with the Dart’s, so not a ‘real’ change.
You might find interesting the styling differences of the Australian Valiants if you haven’t previously seen them.
This was an interesting read Paul, I had not seen this car before. I wonder if it predated the start of the 924 project, being rear-engined? Personally I think that the rear-engine is a poor choice for a non-sportscar unless it is very small, primarily from a safety point but also you don’t get as much storage space in a front trunk as a rear and it is difficult to put it mildly to realise the full benefit of a hatchback body. At least they should have put the spare tyre space-down to liberate a few extra litres of storage space!
I posted some pics of a 74 Valiant Regal on the Cohort page though its a Kiwi version with Pillow upholstery. Very different to the US models.
FWIU the 108″ wb Valiant sedan body dies *wore out* by the end of the 1973 run. Since the Dart sold fewer copies (thus the sedan dies were in better shape) and by that time both divisions offered both 108″ and 111″ coupes…
VH-CM Aussie Valiant was too big for the US compact-car class and too small (externally) for the direction the “midsize” class was heading in ’71-2. Of course, the long hood/short deck look and its’ inherent poor space utilization became obsolete fast after the first gas crunch.
If Porsche really wanted to make a long life vehicle, why didn’t they just captive-import Volvos and rebadge them as Porsches?
But seriously, I think there are some that are even better than the Volvo. I have been restoring a 1960 Rover p4 80, which has a very detuned engine that is over engineered, every bit of the braking, drivetrain and suspension is adjustable for wear, and the bonnet, boot and doors are alloy. It is built on a truck-like frame that won’t rust, and will likely be driving around in another 20 years. The interior likewise uses quality wool carpeting that is 1″ thick; top quality leather, and the wood trim is not veneer, but rather carved and turned pieces of solid walnut. That’s quality.
“who wants to oversteer through it with a 75 hp hair-shirt Porsche?”
Could you really get it to oversteer with 75 hp?
Ask all the people that flipped their 30 hp VWs, 60 hp 356s, 80 hp Corvairs, 38hp Dauphines, and 55hp Tatraplans.
Oversteer on rear engine cars came/comes into play most dramatically when folks enter a curve too quickly and press the wrong pedal, or just let up on the gas. We’re not talking drifting here.
Even with modern tires, anti-lock bakes, traction control, etc.?
Yes, the problem is called tuck-under, and no braking or traction device can fix it as its an issue of weight transfer. On a swing axle car, the axles pivot only from the centre point, the gearbox.
When going into a corner, the body leans, which makes the rear wheels go ‘bow legged.’ This reduces the track, pushes the ‘high’ side of the car up, and on the roof you go! Fiat 600’s were notorious for it, and they only had 20hp. The solution of course is to have 2 CV joints in the rear drive shafts, allowing the wheels to remain vertical to the ground and parallel to each other.
This is what Chevrolet did with the ’65 Corvair, and by doing so, created perhaps THE best handling American car of all time, and indeed, the best car ever to come out of the General.
liftoff oversteer commonly used by rally drivers to set up for a corner so as to power thru turns tail out this was the manuever called the scandinavian flick so as to keep the SAAB 2 stroke screaming at full power left foot brake throw it sideways while keeping full power on great fun if you can drive if you cant well over she goes shiney side down.
It also kind of looks like a Lada Samara. Rumour had it that Porsche had a big part in the design of that car.
They did- I think Porsche operated a consulting firm called ‘System Porsche’. They also developed the SEAT Ibiza mk1, which looks very similar to the Samara, and the engines share technology. Clearly Porsche did not assign their best and brightest to the projects.
Ahh, my dream of a car TRULY designed to last a LONG time.
I really do think a company could make money on a car like that.
Think simple, well-made, roomy, not under or over powered, using the most common parts possible…
A GM A-body Cutlass Ciera with a 3″ wheelbase stretch to give it an actual back seat, excellent rustproofing, using a 3800 and 4-speed auto with oil and transmission fluid coolers, that early ’90s velour that never seemed to wear out, available as a 4-door sedan or wagon….I would buy one of those in a heartbeat.
I was thinking about the old A-body Ciera in the same light recently. Make mine an 85-87 style, ala the “tan ciera” in Fargo. The only problem is the RUST. I know you said excellent rust-proofing, but I’m not sure that was physically possible on those cars, given that they made them for 15 years and never seemed to get it right. The only thing that didn’t disintegrate was the roof.
Cough Checker Cough
I think Mercedes beat everyone to the punch with their 1970s and 80s 300 Series diesels. There are many of those still crusing the highways at 25 plus years of age and 300K plus miles. Indestructable.
Just thought of a long-life car story, that someone like Brabus or possibly one of the other M-Benz tuners was approached by a customer who wanted an S-class that he could drive for 300,000km without needing any mechanical attention, not even servicing. They built the car with additional oil capacity etc, then waited for his return 3 years later – they were disappointed to find he had ended up only covering 295,000km!
Has anyone else heard of this?
The Porsche 1989 LFA (1973) was on display during last weekend’s 25th “Scuderia Lufthansa Classico” in Hattersheim, next to Frankfurt am Main.
I made three photos of the car which can be found in this public facebook photo album:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.620502461295579.1073741832.100000074927204&type=3
The subject is a downer depending on how one looks at it; then again, I really love cars like the new, rear-engined Twingo and the BMW i3. I’d love to see something like this studied by Porsche today. Anytime the company has strayed from making cost-no-object cars like the 911 or Boxster, the results reflect a profound creativity.
A small hatchback based on the 911 sounds like a really cool deal, and I can imagine a version developed for today’s reality might be quite an interesting proposition, with tallish proportions; a small-bore, rear mounted flat four; composite body panels; luggage compartments above the engine and under the front hood and seating strictly for four, it could be add economies of scale to some existing hardware, but more significantly, borrow parts from the likes of VW’s Up! and Polo as well, and therefore be done cheaply. And energy-intensive aluminum could be avoided in favor of plastics and thin steel where possible. Not to mention, today’s refined technologies mean high efficiency and acceptable performance can be attained without exotic engineering solutions.
What sort of small, four-seat hatch could Porsche give us for $20k in the near future using an economized version of its flat four or a canted VW triple under the luggage compartment?
While not exactly the same idea you present, Porsche did develop a cheap “family car” for China at the request of the government in 1994 called the C88 (F/F, though). I was very intrigued at the time:
I’ve been thinking for a long time about how soon it will likely be that there will be more drivable 100-year-old cars than 50-year-old ones. I’m thinking that my 1987 Alfa Milano is right at that tipping point, simply because so many of its operating systems are dependent on electronic devices that are increasingly unobtainable. I am already SOL in the switch department, with ignition and electric-window switches no longer in catalogs. On the other hand, almost any 100-YO car you can find intact now is either in running condition or can easily be made so, and as the Model T and then the Model A hit their centenary we will probably see masses of them gathering for birthday rallies. In the meantime, the gatherings of 1980 cars? I’m afraid those might be short parades …
I passed a ’14 T in a vintage car run a few weeks back. It really stood out among the later Ts and As that made up the rest of the group. Never thought till now that it was 102 years old.
Combines the attractiveness of a Pacer with the space-efficiency and sure-footed handling of a Beetle. How can it lose? Let’s do it!
To be fair, a Beetle had cutting-edge space efficiency – for the ’30s when the basic design was laid out.
I’m pretty sure Volvo (as an independent car company) went out of business because their cars lasted too long.
Who wanted to buy a 1990 Volvo 240 when it looked just like your 1978 Volvo 240, which was still running fine?
I think Volvo went out of business because they were forced into selling really expensive luxury cars which went up against the likes of BMW and Benz price wise without the capital to make them dynamically competitive. Volvos were practical family transport above all else, but their focus of safety and quality, combined with small corporate scale and high labor costs, resulted in expensive cars that appealed to a small population. If Subaru’s cars were super expensive, they’d have the same problem. Saab had the same issue.
And RWD brick Volvos last forever in a sense, if you can deal with expensive climate control hassles, electrical niggles and tatty trim, but once they began making cars that strayed from that formula, reliability went out the window. Cars may last forever, but people who buy new cars in the first place typically don’t keep them around forever.
I don’t think your argument holds up. Volvo Group sold the car manufacturing business to Ford in 1999 for the equivalent of $9 billion today. At the time it was still profitable. The 240 had gone out of production in 1993 and the 900 series in 1998, but they weren’t doing badly. The S80 was brand new at the time and the S70/V70, the former 850, were to be replaced the next year. So they were doing quite well with their reputation for reliable, long-lasting cars. However the 850/S70 and S80 never had the quality of their previous cars, which hurt them in the long run much more than did the infrequent but happy buyers of the 100/200/700/900 series. They went from profitability to losses during the Ford era, resulting in the sale to Geely in 2009 at the bargain-bin price of $1.5 billion.
Specifically, Volvo’s highest sales year in the USA was 1986, with over 113k cars sold–evidently lots of people wanted to buy a 1986 Volvo 240 which looked very much like their 1974 Volvo 240 which was still running fine. Not to mention the 240 outlived the 700-series by a year, when the 700 series was originally intended to replace it! So there was still a market even into the 90’s.
This story reminds me of an old movie called “The Last Chase” starring Lee Majors. If I remember correctly, it dealt with the shortage of fuel in the future, among other things. Coincidentally, the race car he defiantly drove in that movie was a Porsche!
The 2.5 flat six might have made a good engine for the VW bus. Mild tuning, probably good torque and simple to work on the rare times it needs it.
I am impressed that Porsche took the time to imagine an alternative future and their place in it. Nowadays, automakers only do this in pursuit of a government grant.
I like the picture with the 70s guy looking at it. He looks like Stan from Mad Men.
Yeah, like Stan minus 40 lbs.
I can see some resemblance to the later Porsche 928, which also looks like a Pacer from behind.
Looks very much like a Lada 2108 / Samara prototype. Developed by Porsche Design about 6 years later.
So a Fiat Ritmo Abarth?
Unsung hot hatch hero. Now that would be a basket case to keep running in the US. Imagine pulling up to your local 500 retailer in one of those or a Tipo 16v and asking for parts or maintenance.
Lol yes…
If I ever become rich (which I doubt I will), my garage would likely have something abstract like this. Parts be damned, I’d find a way. Who wouldn’t dream of a current Land Cruiser for a daily, current 911 Targa for the weekends, and an old Lancia for the headaches?
I would be interested in knowing from those of you who are in salt free climates, what are the “lifetime” cars still out on their daily rounds?
I’m not salt free here in central VA, but I think “low salt” qualifies. And as to cars 30+ years old still being driven daily? The usual suspects–W123 and W126 Mercedes (mostly diesels), Volvo 240, GM B- and C- bodies, RWD A/G bodies, and early FWD A-bodies, a perhaps surprising number of E28 BMWs, panther Fords.
If we include trucks, you can throw a rock and hit a 1967+ Ford F-series. Three generations, all well represented. And an also surprising number of VW Vanagons and Rabbit pickups.
It’s not exactly salt free here, but low salt, so the same as Chris M. says.
25 to 30 years old cars still driven daily: Volvo, Volkswagens (Polo, Golf, Passat), Audi 80 (B3 gen) and above all Mercedes-Benz (W201 and W124).
Especially the Mercedes-Benz W124 is a still widely used daily driver. The W126 has become a typical enthusiast-vehicle, these never had a diesel engine in Europe.
The Volkswagen T4 van and light truck, introduced in 1990, can also be seen on the roads nowadays as daily driven commercial vehicles.
The W126 S-class never had diesels in Europe? That’s surprising to me. We got quite a lot of 300SD models in the early 80’s, though the proportion grew much smaller as the 80’s went on in favor of the fancier 420, 500, and range-topping 560SEL. Though I painted both models with too broad a brush–one still sees more gas W126 models. The W123, on the other hand, is exceedingly rare to see as a “gasser”; the survivors are almost all 300D (or CD or TD) models with some 240D represented as well.
W124’s are still extraordinarily numerous here too but they only overlapped my arbitrary 30-year cutoff by one year (’86) so I mentioned the earlier models instead. And the 190E has mostly disappeared, probably falling into that gap between economical repair (it’s still a Benz) and desirability (people in this country are sometime loath to spend much on a smaller car, even if it was once a status symbol).
Porsche & Lotus have done technical consultancy in the same fashion as the Italian design houses do styling.