Recalls & more recalls. Cars are now too complex!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: morris
with most / all the of the repair parts valuable for the cars of the late 60s. that might be a good way to go. even that i cant do my own repair any more i bet my mechanic would not mind working working a 1968 Road Runner. what think?

My regular mechanic works on a 1966 Mustang. I saw it last week: dark blue over cream vinyl, not a show car but more than respectable looking. The owner had him add an aftermarket, under-the-dash A/C unit that looks almost factory and, he says, blows something like 43 degrees. Car looks great!
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Something that always fails to amuse me is the sheer number of cane-shaking luddites on here. Always reminiscing about the good ol days back when cars were unsafe, unreliable, and had no power. Take off the rose colored glasses for a minute.

Cars in the 80so and 90s weren't particularly well made or reliable. The 80s in particular was still in the "it's hit 100k and completely worn out" time period. They also were severely underpowered in general, and were in general unsafe when it comes to crashes. Modern cars are incredibly safe with much stronger frames, airbags, abs, etc. But even just looking at chassis improvements, you have an order of magnitude difference. But some people don't care about that. They don't care about fuel economy or emissions. They only want to gripe that cars were a lot better with carburetor and cap and rotor distributors. Cars of today, even with increasing complexity are in every single way, less repairability, better than cars in years past.

You're painting with a very, very broad brush. As such, I'm willing to bet you weren't driving during the 80's or 90's either. In regard to American-made, mostly I'd agree. In regard to European & Japanese, no. During this time, the later caught the former seriously out-of-date and completely unprepared and arrogant when confronted with a new paradigm.

In particular the Europeans and the Swedes built much safer, better designed and much better handling autos than the rust-belt Big3. Not only were they much more fun to drive, they also got MUCH better gas mileage. Emphasis on much.

It's why in the past 31 years I've only owned two cars. Both Swedish: An '83 and a '98. Both with turbochargers and cap & rotor ignitions....
 
Sled,

When are you going to update that sig to break 200k and get your badge?

Forty-eight miles. Go drive and buy some beer or something.
 
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Sled,

When are you going to update that sig to break 200k and get your badge?

Forty-eight miles. Go drive and buy some beer or something.

LOL...DONE! I was right at 199,985 or something and thought "Wow..I need to watch it roll over". Problem was I was in traffic, and soon forgot, then later realized I'd completely missed it! Nuts! Thanks for the reminder. VolvoUsa gives out badges?
 
Originally Posted By: sleddriver
VolvoUsa gives out badges?


I think VCNA is down to stickers at this point, if that.

You can still find the old style round color-coded badges on Ebay, either new or used. The higher the mileage, the harder (and more expensive) they are. Mileage badges under 300,000 are pretty common, though. I've seen them used for as little as $10.

VCNA later went to a generic rectangular badge for all mileage "awards". I might have one of those laying around for 200,000. If you want it, I can mail it to you.

Get one, and slap it on the tailgate. I'm sure you will have space left for the 300,000 and 400,000 ones when the time comes.

Congrats on your finally broken-in Volvo.
 
I've heard that same lament about vehicles for at least the last 50 years.

I heard it in the 1960's when vehicles went to complicated carburetors, automatic chokes and automatic transmissions. I heard it in the 1970's when vehicles began to have acres of vacuum tubing and pollution controls. I heard it in the 1980's when vehicles began to have engines mounted sideways and front wheel drive. I heard it in the 1990's when computers began showing up in cars.

And the timeframe referenced as being "better" and "more reliable" is about 25 years prior. I still remember my grandfather complaining about his 1961 Ford pickup, and how complicated and unreliable it was compared to his 1940 International.

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Something that always fails to amuse me is the sheer number of cane-shaking luddites on here. Always reminiscing about the good ol days back when cars were unsafe, unreliable, and had no power. Take off the rose colored glasses for a minute.


It's rare that I agree with the snot nosed brat crowd, but I have to agree this time.
 
I agree with Pop and Nick. People seem to only remember the good things from their youth. I'm too young to have a firsthand experience with 70's or 80' cars, but I've read plenty stories of cars rusting out in 3 years or needing engine overhaul before 100k miles.
Sure, we managed to produce some iconic cars during those times, but the rest was essentially junk when compared to what we have today.

I do have experience with 90's cars and for the most part I don't see how they were better. The only positive attribute that I can see is that they were still relatively light weight.

In today’s cars, the only thing that puts me off is the extensive use of touch screens that integrate with car controls like HVAC, suspension and engine settings, control of interior lights etc. and the overall trend to use this in economy cars.
 
No, I remember some pretty bad cars from the '70s and '80s. Some had awful assembly quality.

I thought many of the cars from the '60s were not bad, though.

But I do think the engineering focus changed at some point in the very early '50s. By the late 50s, a lot of families were trading in every 2-3 years, so things like durability started to take a back seat to styling . . . and cost.

Today people hold on to them longer, they cost relatively more than they did, and tend to go a little longer.

But there are still a lot of recalls where someone in engineering pointed it out early, and was ignored by bean counters. That's been going on for as long as I remember, back to the Corvair and Pinto. The latest GM ignition debacle seems like more of the same.
 
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
It's no surprise that component failures, some leading to recalls, are growing more and more common when cost trumps engineering.

majority of recalls are not due to cost cutting measure. It is due to the fact that standards of compliancy's have changed and forced far more vigorous. Cars of 80's would have been totally inadequate and street illegal if built & sold today. That bad.
 
What is not realized is the facts part to part both reliability & durability as well as functionality have improved to a great extent. Cars of today have far more parts and some parts are actually have become a system of parts. Given that it is NOT an apple to apple comparison anymore.
What is more The industries in fact pushing more and more for more reliability due to stiff competition and cost cutting measures are never done at the price of reliability and durability rather better products for less cost. Cost cutting is not a con.
 
Originally Posted By: CaspianM
What is not realized is the facts part to part both reliability & durability as well as functionality have improved to a great extent. Cars of today have far more parts and some parts are actually have become a system of parts. Given that it is NOT an apple to apple comparison anymore.
What is more The industries in fact pushing more and more for more reliability due to stiff competition and cost cutting measures are never done at the price of reliability and durability rather better products for less cost. Cost cutting is not a con.


I would have agreed with you UP until the early 2000s. Not anymore, the cost cutting has started to show up en mass in critical hard parts and other areas as well.

I have noticed on the Toyota and Honda forums that owners are experiencing things they they NEVER dealt with on their previous cars from these manufacturers.

Cost cutting and cutting corners is rampant in the entire industry and it is getting to the point where we are now going backwards in durability and reliability.

Perhaps this is why the entire industry is pushing the consumer to
lease lease lease, instead of buying. So that they won't be in the vehicle long enough to see the increasing shortcomings with regard to durability and reliability after a few years. Of course this lines the company pockets even more since the fools will keep paying more and more for something they don't even own. LOL
 
I've been driving beaters for 20 years. Started with an 80 ford fairmont and an 89 mazda 323.

Dad's 80 fairmont manual tranny needed shift forks, but was apparently simple enough any idiot mechanic could do them.

The 90s cars were great. If they had problems they were sorted out under warranty for the original owner, and got more rugged parts. This is where durability outshines reliability. They also take cheap, small tires.

2000s cars are meh: Low lead solder making electronics flaky. Non-rustproofed filler necks (expensive!) leading to perpetual EVAP leaks. They are quiet and automatics shift better.

2010 cars have horrible visibility, expensive tires, and are heavy. I hope they aren't too picky on emissions when they get old. I hope something environmental that wasn't fully tested doesn't rear its ugly head with a short life. And blech, touch screens and styling that looks like female anatomy.
37.gif
 
I like my complex, high tech vehicles. More power, safer, more efficient, cleaner, more reliable, more durable, more comfortable, better handling...

My only complaint is that new cars are expensive and I don't like to part with my money.

I love older cars from a hobby/nostalgia point of view, but for the day to day grind and basic people hauling it's hard to beat a more modern vehicle.
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
CaspianM said:
I have noticed on the Toyota and Honda forums that owners are experiencing things they they NEVER dealt with on their previous cars from these manufacturers.

Cost cutting and cutting corners is rampant in the entire industry and it is getting to the point where we are now going backwards in durability and reliability.

Perhaps this is why the entire industry is pushing the consumer to
lease lease lease, instead of buying. So that they won't be in the vehicle long enough to see the increasing shortcomings with regard to durability and reliability after a few years. Of course this lines the company pockets even more since the fools will keep paying more and more for something they don't even own. LOL


Leasing is a tool for manufacturers to shift the depreciation of their stock to consumers not b/c quality issue. It is a financial solution to push the looses to consumers.
I had a good numbers of issues with Toyota, Datsun, and GM products back in 80's. And as it was mentioned 90's was a remarkable improvements for car industry.

As cars getting more automated on control system, higher efficiency and safer, we should expect some transitional volatile status in initial quality as they reduce time spent in testing and pushing consumers to share the effort in actual usage. Now that is a area where I can see they are cutting corners. However it becomes extremely costly and financially unfeasible to extend their testing time to maturation. That is pushing it toward higher end vehicles in price range.
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
I've been driving beaters for 20 years. Started with an 80 ford fairmont and an 89 mazda 323.

Dad's 80 fairmont manual tranny needed shift forks, but was apparently simple enough any idiot mechanic could do them.

The 90s cars were great. If they had problems they were sorted out under warranty for the original owner, and got more rugged parts. This is where durability outshines reliability. They also take cheap, small tires.

2000s cars are meh: Low lead solder making electronics flaky. Non-rustproofed filler necks (expensive!) leading to perpetual EVAP leaks. They are quiet and automatics shift better.

2010 cars have horrible visibility, expensive tires, and are heavy. I hope they aren't too picky on emissions when they get old. I hope something environmental that wasn't fully tested doesn't rear its ugly head with a short life. And blech, touch screens and styling that looks like female anatomy.
37.gif



Spot on!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top