Are all manufactures terrible now?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've owned cars made from the early 70s up till my 2012 Accord. In my experience, the cars from the early to mid 90s were the best,especially the "made in Japan" Japanese cars. The actual made in Japan Japanese cars blew away the quality, durability,and reliability of the made in USA Japanese cars.
 
The difference now is we find out about issues sooner with TSB and recall's. There were some real GEMS built in the 70's and 80'. A big plus is now we have forums like BITOG where we have better info to make better choices.
 
Today's cars are better because of the governments mandated emission warranty
 
I went from nearly constant up -keep on 30 yr old BMWs to 10k OCIs and a tire swap every 6 months (free) on the Camrys. I admit the cartridge filter is a PITN to deal with. I've decided to extend filter interval to 20K. 2.5 L 4banger gets 10mpg more than 2.7 L 128 HP M 20. Bmw handled better, but Camry is quieter. On the BMWs , I favored the driver's seat. The passnger's is the best on the Camry because you're totally removed from driving experience, not just 75%
grin2.gif


My take is that 2016 Camrys built who knows where are maybe too complicated for me to do much on the drive train except fluid and filters. When I drove 200K on a Bosch EFI while owning 3 others just as trouble free. Complicated stuff , expensive to replace. EXCEPT, the expensive stuff never needed replacing or constant attention. Same thing with the Camry. I'm quite happy happy with it.
 
Originally Posted by CT8
Today's cars are better because of the governments mandated emission warranty


Please tell us how this government policy makes our cars "better?" My thought is emissions warrant really has nothing to do with any of the advanced safety features most cars today have. How does the emissions warranty figure in this?
 
Originally Posted by PWMDMD
Well it's partly based on my own experience as well. I've owned 10 new cars in the past 12 years from many manufactures and only had a single problem (2010 Acura TL) until my current vehicles (2018 Honda Pilot has needed multiple trips to dealer for failed components) and my 2019 Lexus RX 350 needed an ECU reflash to fix some issues. Up until these cars other than a weld around the moonroof of the TL my cars all just worked flawlessly - most driven to +60k miles.

Edit: Sorry, also fuel pump failed on a 2014 Mazda3 with about 1500 miles on it.


10 vehicles in 12 years, and braggin' about 60K miles. Now that's rich. Hardly hard, long term data. You go through 10 vehicles in the time I go through one or two. Put a couple hundred thousand miles on something and then you'll gain a whole new perspective.
 
Originally Posted by Fawteen
Originally Posted by PWMDMD
Well it's partly based on my own experience as well. I've owned 10 new cars in the past 12 years from many manufactures and only had a single problem (2010 Acura TL) until my current vehicles (2018 Honda Pilot has needed multiple trips to dealer for failed components) and my 2019 Lexus RX 350 needed an ECU reflash to fix some issues. Up until these cars other than a weld around the moonroof of the TL my cars all just worked flawlessly - most driven to +60k miles.

Edit: Sorry, also fuel pump failed on a 2014 Mazda3 with about 1500 miles on it.


10 vehicles in 12 years, and braggin' about 60K miles. Now that's rich. Hardly hard, long term data. You go through 10 vehicles in the time I go through one or two. Put a couple hundred thousand miles on something and then you'll gain a whole new perspective.


These vehicle have been for me, my wife and my mother. It's not long term data and that's exactly my point! It's the most recent cars that are having the most issues and they're having them at 1500 miles, 10K miles and 15K miles. They aren't even making it to 30K miles let alone 60K or 100K or 200K without needed parts replaced that should not need to be replaced. You make my point exactly! I'm not sure I want to see how the Pilot performs at 100K.....
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by BISCUT
Originally Posted by CT8
Today's cars are better because of the governments mandated emission warranty


Please tell us how this government policy makes our cars "better?" My thought is emissions warrant really has nothing to do with any of the advanced safety features most cars today have. How does the emissions warranty figure in this?

The drivetrains had to improve to meet mileage and emissions standards.
They became far more efficient.
 
Originally Posted by BISCUT
Please tell us how this government policy makes our cars "better?"

I know it seems odd, but it does. And this is coming from someone who most likely HATES government intervention in the private sector more than anyone on this board. So it's not easy for me to admit. But the fact is large corporations are a lot like little kids. If you don't keep an eye on them, and force them to do the right thing, most will end up doing something lazy and nasty instead. Or else nothing at all.

It's no different than forcing your kid to eat all his vegetables, or study and do his homework, instead of watching TV. They'll scream and whine, but in the long run they'll turn out better. Government mileage standards have given us HEMI engines that get 20+ MPG on the highway, instead of 8. With more horsepower, better dependability, and smoother performance. A 60's era HEMI idled like a coffee can full of rocks. (The fact they fetch over $100K at Barrett Jackson doesn't make them run any better).

Government air quality standards, coupled with the banning of leaded gas, has given us those same engines that can go 100,000 miles between spark plug changes..... Instead of 10,000 miles. Computerized fuel injection systems squeeze a lot more out of every drop of fuel consumed, when compared to carburetors that were nothing but a PITA. If it was solely up to the automakers, none of that would have happened. They all would have continued to make and sell crap.

Yes, in the 80's competition coming from better manufacturing standards from the Japanese, and to some extent the European car makers, forced them to stop trying to stick round pegs into square holes, and accomplish some much needed innovation to draw customers back to American cars.

But the fact is the government made them tow the line far better. Especially when it comes to things like safety. Seat belts would still most likely be an extra cost option if it were up to them. The automakers care about your safety, about as much as the government does about your health care. Both are out to promise you everything, and deliver as little as possible.

The government and the automakers are strange bedfellows, no doubt. A bit like a snake and a mongoose. But when you combine them they end up biting each other, instead of us.
 
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Originally Posted by BISCUT
Originally Posted by CT8
Today's cars are better because of the governments mandated emission warranty


Please tell us how this government policy makes our cars "better?" My thought is emissions warrant really has nothing to do with any of the advanced safety features most cars today have. How does the emissions warranty figure in this?

The drivetrains had to improve to meet mileage and emissions standards.
They became far more efficient.


Also the long emissions level warranty ensures the car maker is on hook to build/design the driveline to be reliable in that period.

Once fuel injection/OBD-II got sorted reliability of over 100k with major incident occurred.
 
Originally Posted by HemiBenny
The only thing that I dislike about a lot of modern cars is how unnecessarily hard it is to do some simple repair or part replacement, that's the extent of my gripes. I put a thermostat housing on a GMC Canyon with the 3500 yesterday and the location of it is absolutely asinine. A few weeks ago, I replaced an oil cooler/filter housing on a Chevy cruze 1.4l and was just amazed at the fact that it is all stuffed behind the turbo and exhaust manifold. I know they're limited on the amount of space that they have on these cars, but seriously.


They were designed to make the manufacturing process easier and less expensive. Making things easy to repair or replace was not part of the design process considerations.
 
Originally Posted by SeaJay
Originally Posted by HemiBenny
The only thing that I dislike about a lot of modern cars is how unnecessarily hard it is to do some simple repair or part replacement, that's the extent of my gripes. I put a thermostat housing on a GMC Canyon with the 3500 yesterday and the location of it is absolutely asinine. A few weeks ago, I replaced an oil cooler/filter housing on a Chevy cruze 1.4l and was just amazed at the fact that it is all stuffed behind the turbo and exhaust manifold. I know they're limited on the amount of space that they have on these cars, but seriously.


They were designed to make the manufacturing process easier and less expensive. Making things easy to repair or replace was not part of the design process considerations.


Well it's very obvious that making things easy to fix wasn't a consideration, I gathered that much when I've had to replace a lot of these cheap parts. I would be interested in knowing exactly how it makes the manufacturing process easier.
 
I feel it's a bunch of things - modularization, reducing the cost of goods sold, making a car look good on paper for cost of ownership, safety and emissions.

I'm all for safety and emissions - more people are surviving crashes and our air has never been cleaner. But cars are an expensive thing to buy(for many, the most expensive thing they will buy that isn't a house) and the automakers want to make a car look good on paper as far as maintenance goes. All the lightweighting, modular assemblies and global supply chains are in the automaker's favor to allow a car to built worldwide with localization differences and to control the costs of the bill of goods on every car. GM might have started building cars on a common platform back in the 70s-80s, but it was VW, Honda and Toyota who took the idea of modularity and ran with it.
 
Originally Posted by HemiBenny

Well it's very obvious that making things easy to fix wasn't a consideration, I gathered that much when I've had to replace a lot of these cheap parts. I would be interested in knowing exactly how it makes the manufacturing process easier.


There are things robots can do. And there are things that seem like they should be simple to do, but are actually things that robots can not do. At least that is the way it was described to me.
 
The high point of car reliability, and durability was probably from the early 90s until the mid 2000s.

With all the extra nonsense today and add complicated computerization (not the basically simple CANBUS system from 1995-2006) and you have a recipe for disaster.
There is no question that SEVERE cost cutting is occurring at all major automakers now. The greed has reached epic proportions in the past five years or so.
 
Originally Posted by HemiBenny
I would be interested in knowing exactly how it makes the manufacturing process easier.


This would be an interesting discussion on its own. Examples could be:
1) Overzealous use of plastic clips instead of bolts. Snapping parts in place is alot easier than bolting or screwing it.
2) Plastics being used everywhere in place of metal parts. Eg. Oil pans, intake manifolds. Weight reduction not only is beneficial for vehicle performance, but also minimizing transport costs in manufacturing.
3) Gluing stuff together is generally cheaper to make than designing something that is designed to be taken apart.
4) Adding service panels is expensive. Eg. Force the user to drop the fuel tank instead of having an interior panel to change the fuel pump.
 
Originally Posted by nobb
Originally Posted by HemiBenny
I would be interested in knowing exactly how it makes the manufacturing process easier.


This would be an interesting discussion on its own. Examples could be:
1) Overzealous use of plastic clips instead of bolts. Snapping parts in place is alot easier than bolting or screwing it.
2) Plastics being used everywhere in place of metal parts. Eg. Oil pans, intake manifolds. Weight reduction not only is beneficial for vehicle performance, but also minimizing transport costs in manufacturing.
3) Gluing stuff together is generally cheaper to make than designing something that is designed to be taken apart.
4) Adding service panels is expensive. Eg. Force the user to drop the fuel tank instead of having an interior panel to change the fuel pump.



1) And no risk of under/over tightening.
2) Cheaper to manufacture. For example, plastic manifolds don't need expensive sand casting followed by polish/porting. In addition they save money on energy costs as well.
3) And the adhesives are stronger than using fasteners
4) Yep, plus the failure rate of these impacted parts you're trying to access is incredibly low
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by nobb
Originally Posted by HemiBenny
I would be interested in knowing exactly how it makes the manufacturing process easier.



3) Gluing stuff together is generally cheaper to make than designing something that is designed to be taken apart.
4) Adding service panels is expensive. Eg. Force the user to drop the fuel tank instead of having an interior panel to change the fuel pump.


This made me think about at what point are there diminishing returns with this design philosophy? I guess money saved on every vehicle manufactured not putting in an access door is significantly more than the number of fuel pumps that will require replacement under warranty - even if the process of replacing it is unnecessarily complicated/time consuming without easy access to the fuel pump.
 
I'm waiting to see. I have one 1999 so it exemplifies 90's engineering. And I have a 2010 & 2011 so they too are examples of ... 1990's engineering. Err, nevermind... But I'm still going see how long these go and then I'll measure any new(er) vehicles by them. Unfortunately they're too new / too low miles to know if they are good or not; 155k, 190k and 212k, so I'm waiting to see. [The '99 has had a lot of work done to it over the last year so I suspect it's a good example of how the good old days weren't that good. The other two have been basically untouched, save for a serpentine tensioner and a brake caliper, so it too isn't that high quality.]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top