Why does modern Tin seem so unreliable and short lived?

[Micrashed]

Back in the 60's and 70's cars rusted to death.

Mechanically at least most stuff seemed capable of reasonable miles before destruction usually through returning to its natural state of iron oxide, though possibly 3,4 and 5000 mile service intervals helped here (and its something I still carry on to this day even with modern bland Eurobox motors).

Of course the motoring public revolted and helped by better corrosion measures on imported cars gradually most cars were better protected against the dreaded tin worm. Probably reaching a peak around the late 1980's and early 1990's with regards body longevity and mechanical reliability.

 

Since then it all seems to be going downhill again with Ford and Nissan making cars out of cheesium that dissolves in rain and Citroen, GM and Renault making engines out of papermache that self destruct just long enough outside the warranty period for it to be "natural wear and tear" and pretty much all of them making wiring looms out of spaghetti dipped in mercury.

 

Ford Ka after a light rain shower

 

Is it a conspiracy, "make a car last 8 years and no more so we sell more", are manufacturing standards slipping? or is it down to the complexity of modern motors and the need to meet ever "greener" standards? Hell at this rate I'll be having to wear charcoal underpants to prevent greenhouse emission from my arse.

Lamp of death

[Negative Creep]

Must mainly be down to the complexity of repair. If a clutch went on a Cortina I bet you could do it in an hour. If it goes on a Mondeo it could write the car off.

[Luxobarges_Are_Us]

My theory is that overall reliability hasn't really fallen off a cliff, although certain models/types of stuff (DMF anyone?) are badly designed and/or prone to failure. I think it's all to do with the price of labour. Check out the spots from Thailand. Labour is cheap there, ergo getting an old car fixed is cheap and cars hold their value better. Whereas here, the dealer will charge you at least 100 quid an hour, and even at independent garages you most likely won't have change from a red note. A 5 hour job costs more in labour alone than the car is worth in scrap.

Places like Greece and Spain are somewhere in the middle- prices are lower than here but not super low, so people hold on to cars for a few extra years...

[Rocket88]

Some modern stuff seems almost wilfully designed to be as difficult as possible to fix. Others seem to have completely lost sight of their heritage, and what they used to be good at [Renault / Peugeot /Citroen]. French car manufacturers used to be very good at two things, epic diesels, and very comfy seats. Seats are still reasonably ok, but modern French diesels are a 'mare.

Japanese stuff used to be stuffed full of electronic wonderment which was uber reliable , but hideously expensive if it went wrong. The actual driving experience was fairly indifferent. Now Citroen stuff their cars full of electronic and expensive to fix wonderment, which makes 60's Italian wiring look positively [ho ho ]reliable.

 

Manufacturers realised that your average punter won't stand for stuff that rusts, or clanks and rattles, so something had to be done to make sure that they expire after about 8 years. So they invented the ECU, and all it's little malovolent controller offspring.....and then situated most of them in places where water leaks were mostly likely to bugger them up when seals beame a bit tired with age, or designed water traps that peole couldn't obviously see. VAG stuff with swimming pools in the bulkhead compartment are your main culprits here, although the Rover 75 is a close second.

 

If you seriously want to buy a new car that'll last, get the most basic model, with the least amount of electronic kit.

[cort16]

They're not really. Think of some of the rammel back in the 70's that lasted 4 years from new before being binned for terminal grot or huge design flaws.

Cars are better built and don't have quite so many rust traps now but are hampered by various complex electronics. Ying - Yang

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

Complexity, the need for laptops to code in new parts and of course savage depreciation versus comedy parts prices. If you're a typical Britains Got Talent on X Factor Ice watching imbecile, then you'll throw away a fixable car and spunk even more money on a newer one. If you're like us, you'll thoroughly investigate fixing it by fair means or foul.

 

Really though, a car should last 15 to 20 years. My 1989 and 1993 Krautmobiles are still in fine fettle with valid MOT's and my 17 year old daily shitter flew though it's test yesterday without an advisory.

 

I do indeed recall six year old cars in scrapyards - 120Y Dats and 180 Chryslers for instance. I saw P reg examples of both in breakers during 1981 and 1982.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

So they invented the ECU, and all it's little malovolent controller offspring.....and then situated most of them in places where water leaks were mostly likely to bugger them up when seals beame a bit tired with age, or designed water traps that peole couldn't obviously see. VAG stuff with swimming pools in the bulkhead compartment are your main culprits here, although the Rover 75 is a close second.

 

Followed by the BMW 1 Series with a pretty vital body control module in the spare wheel well, where it swims with dolphins in water that gets past the shagged side vent seals.

[face]

I started driving in 1989, 23 years ago.

 

I wonder if a higher percentage of 1966 cars produced survived then, compared to 1989 cars now?

 

If you catch my drift?

[dollywobbler]

I'm not sure modern Tin is so unreliable or short lived. There are some horrors out there, but modern cars can generally cover 200,000 miles with no issue, which wasn't the case in the 1960s (well, not for the likes of Ford and Austin - the French were better at it, but then their country is bigger). Don't forget that service intervals are now humongous as well. My 2CV needs a service every 3000 miles. A modern car needs a service every 20,000 odd miles. Downside is that rather than small, regular service bills, you'll get walloped for something immense come service time instead. A four-figure service sounds terrifying, but then it'd be terrifying if you added up lots of smaller service bills.

 

If people actually stumped up to repair their broken modern tin rather than just binning it for something else, the story would be different. People look at what their car is worth and then stupidly refuse to spend more than that to repair it if something goes wrong. They'd rather own something shiny and then throw THAT away when something goes wrong.

[Luxobarges_Are_Us]

I started driving in 1989, 23 years ago.

 

I wonder if a higher percentage of 1966 cars produced survived then, compared to 1989 cars now?

 

If you catch my drift?

 

I am sure that you are right in your basic presumption, BUT you also need to bear in mind that a lot more cars were sold in 1989 than 1966, therefore seeing more of them about doesn't necessarily mean that a higher percentage of them has survived- just a higher number. As I said, I am sure the percentage is also higher, but perhaps the difference is not as massive as you'd think by just looking at how many 23-year-old cars are about now versus how many you used to see back then.

[gtd2000]

I'm not sure I feel that way but most of my recently purchased cars have been from the late 90's to early 2000,s.

 

I also consider that modern cars are much better built and cheaper than ever.

 

Then again I normally only buy Asian cars so perhaps they have improved greatly over time whilst retaining excellent reliability?

 

The only non-Asian brand that can hold a candle for reliability seems to be Skoda for some reason.

 

As Cort mentioned above some older shite was truly chronic in the 70's.

 

It wasn't until 1983 when my father bought a Nissan Sunny estate that we experienced reliability for starting on cold winter mornings.

 

The previous Fords were hopeless and that bloody awful Fiat 126 was dreadful. It was sold at two years of age rusted to fuck...and wouldn't start in poor weather.

 

It did get a respray before being traded in for a new MK2 Escort Estate.

[face]

I started driving in 1989, 23 years ago.

 

I wonder if a higher percentage of 1966 cars produced survived then, compared to 1989 cars now?

 

If you catch my drift?

 

I am sure that you are right in your basic presumption, BUT you also need to bear in mind that a lot more cars were sold in 1989 than 1966, therefore seeing more of them about doesn't necessarily mean that a higher percentage of them has survived- just a higher number. As I said, I am sure the percentage is also higher, but perhaps the difference is not as massive as you'd think by just looking at how many 23-year-old cars are about now versus how many you used to see back then.

 

I wasn't trying to prove anything there, just putting it out there. You're points are valid mate.

 

I think cars are generally built 'better' these days as in they travel further, faster whilest being more fuel efficient than there ancestors. It seems the throw away/keeping up with the Jones' culture is more rife these days. Manufacturers of all things will endeavour to give the customer what they want, perhaps this is why so many 'new' cars don't get maintained properly and therefore get canned too soon.

 

I don't know.

[dieselnutjob]

reliability peaked at my year 2000 806 HDI

 

those early HDIs are tough things and it has outlived the XUDs I had before it. The cylinder head is tougher due to not needing pre-combustion chambers, the head gaskets don't go after 100,000 miles, and the exhaust valves don't burn out at 200,000 miles. The emission controls are minimal and can all be removed.

 

The car has three seperate ECUs (airbag, ABS and engine) and the ECUs don't talk to each other, and all the other toys are done with switches, relays and bits of wire.

 

The body has a 12 year corrosion warranty.

 

Since then diesel engines have gained more flaps (the ones that destroy BMW engines), more aggressive EGR, DPFs and additive tanks. 16 valves that mash if the belt breaks etc etc

[Pete-M]

Modern diesel tin has to work in pretty much impossible conditions when you think about it. Joe Public wants 50+ mpg, cheap tax, decent refinement which means a DMF on most diesels, huge service intervals of 18-20k between oil changes, and 5* safety ratings so big old crumple zones and wall to wall airbags. A lot of people have rarely if ever driven cars without ABS. Then there are pedestrian impact regs which mean lots of new stuff needs a low bonnet line, yet the manufacturers need to cram everything under into a smaller space than ever before. This in turn means more heat to dissipate and a nightmare for mechanics as the only way for manufacturers to actually put the things together is to put everything into subassemblies otherwise a base model Micra would cost £20k to build.

 

Then there's the other side of it.

 

My '97 528i has done a whopping 306,000 miles, never broken down and absolutely everything still works as it should. There's no visible rot anywhere and it still returns 34 mpg ave at an 80 mph cruise. Not bad for a computer controlled modern.

 

My '94 XJR has done 158k, is totally reliable and has needed nothing in the last two years other than basic servicing and a repair to a split exhaust. Everything works as it should on this, too.

 

My '78 Escort had a full engine rebuild at 80k, nowadays this would result in a stiff letter to the Daily Mail or Watchdog, then it was normal.

 

20 years ago it was difficult to sell a 10yr old Cortina with 130k miles because it was classed as very high mileage. Now 130k isn't much at all. People expect to get 100k+ from anything and the majority of stuff I've owned in the last few years has covered mileages that would be unthinkable 20 years ago.

[Station]

Cars have become more reliable - but it seems they're built to a really low budget. Watching my dad trying to start the car on a winter's morning in the 80's (and even 90's) going to school is a distant memory, I can't remember the last time I saw someone with the bonnet up outside their house trying to get it started. Fuel injection has contributed to it hugely, but it seems the parts are either made to break after a few years (Bosch), or are built to such low tolerances, it's bound to break without the costly servicing at the dealer. Relays, sensors, etc are mostly simple low current/voltage coils. These items should last decades, as they do in industrial machine/airplanes, etc.

 

Style/fashion conscious buyers want new cars and that's were the car makers get their money. Why should they worry about a used car breaking - they make money either way from parts, their scheme is so obvious, and they're not hiding the fact. Buy a car, have free service and warranty for a bit, after these are out, the parts break down - they'd be stupid not to even consider such a huge potential of making money.

[Spiny Norman]

My '78 Escort had a full engine rebuild at 80k, nowadays this would result in a stiff letter to the Daily Mail or Watchdog, then it was normal.

 

Indeed. It's a poor car nowadays that can't get to 200k with little more than 20 oil changes and a couple of cambelts.

 

I think the problem isn't so much modern cars but their owners.

Now I'm no great shakes as a car mechanic though I can do basic stuff, but you suggest to most people nowadays that they check their oil, or worse, pull out a spark plug once in a blue moon to see how the engine's doing and they'll look at you like you've got two heads, they just can't/won't do it. So it's no wonder these complex bits of machinery occasionally go pop, and when they do, the modern 'chuck it away and get a new one' attitude takes over.

 

I have no doubt that maintained properly (and we ain't talking NASA levels of computer-ness here) even a real throw away shitter like a Ka or a Hyundai i20 will do 200k miles and last 15-20 years, but most of the owners don't bother/can't afford it, so the thing gets fed petrol as and when it needs it but little else, so it dies a premature death.

[dieselnutjob]

is longer engine life due to

A: better metallurgy?

B: better fuel control?

C: better oil?

or a combination of more than one

 

there seem to be certain cars such as Mercs and Volvos which had engines that didn't dissolve at 100,000 miles even back in the 70s

[dollywobbler]

Mixture of A and B I'd say. 2CV engines are incredibly robust and can clock up 200,000 miles without issue. That must be down to better metallurgy than others were using. The 803cc A-series engines used white metal bearings! They didn't last well.

 

Better oil means you can stretch service intervals, because the oil doesn't lose its lubricity as quickly. Better filtration helps too of course. The Citroen DS may look amazingly futuristic, but the oil filter is in the sump! Consequently, half-arsed mechanics are not going to be bothered with changing it.

[Mash]

I'm in some agreement that the unreliability has moved to a different place in the car, I think Pete-M got it dead right to be honest.

 

If you do a DVLA search on a lot of cars from the 70s and 80s their lifespan is on average 10 to 12 years. I'd reckon it's about the same now. I also think that the desire of the vast majority of people to get a newer vehicle after what we would call a relatively short period of time makes the perception of what is acceptable much lower nowadays. People don't tend to keep anything (let alone cars) very long so they don't expect it to last 20 years. A friend of mine was moaning the other day because her car was getting "old" - it's an 04 reg FFS. That's positively brand new to me! The newest car I ever bought was 5 years old when I got it and I expected it to still be going strong when it was 10 years old with no issues - as someone else has already said the value of second hand motors relative to spares and labour prices makes it almost pointless to repair.

 

Newer cars are much easier to obtain these days too so there's no incentive to look after something properly. That's my take on why modern cars might sometimes be perceived to be less reliable - NOBODY GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT ANYTHING NOWADAYS - WELCOME TO THE 21ST CENTURY

[Pete-M]

Another thing to consider is the dreaded tinworm. With a few exceptions, you don't see much rust about nowadays really.

 

The 528i is 15 years old and has bugger all rust. The Jag is 18 this year and only has a few little bits on the rear arches. Nothing serious. The Jeep is 15 yrs old and has none. 20 years ago I was regularly cutting massive amounts of rot out of 10 year old Cortinas, Escorts, Mantas, Renault 5s etc. My Escort was parked up at 14 years old in 1993 because rust had near as dammit killed it. Most of the stuff I sent over the bridge back then was down to rust, if the oily bits were knackered it was easier to change 'em for scrapyard bits than it is now, but even now it's not that hard to fix most mechanical things if you have access to diagnostic equipment and a few useful tools..

 

Modern stuff can do insane mileages, I've seen a few 600k+ Mondeo TDCis, and a 700,000 mile Audi A6 V6 TDi which had never had the cylinder head off.

 

The problem is, as I said earlier, that people want new diesels. They expect petrol refinement from a diesel and without stuff like DMFs that is never going to happen. Fuel igniting in an engine with a 10:1 compression ratio is always going to be smoother than fuel igniting in one with a 15 or 20:1 CR. Compression ignition is always going to be rougher than spark ignition, but people expect their new Golf TDi to be as smooth as a petrol BMW 6 pot, which means manufacturers have to fit DMFs and common rail high pressure injection systems to try and smooth out an inherently rough engine. DMFs do the job they're designed to reasonably well, but drivers kill them by sitting in gear at lights with their foot on the clutch instead of engaging neutral and helping the DMF out a bit. Poor old DMF needs all the help it can get. It's trying to smooth out 700 explosions a minute (at idle) whilst having nothing to help it absorb the shock other than itself.

 

They've managed to make common rail high pressure petrol engines work now, they can produce more power and more torque than a diesel and use similar amounts of fuel to the diesel without needing DMFs, DPFs and all the other bullshit diesels need in order to disguise their inherent filthiness. Hopefully this will finally kill the diesel engine and we can go back to having reliable cars.

[Bren]

We can blame the manufacturers, but ultimately it is down to the consumer.

 

We want the most frugal, most spacious, most equipped, most safest vehicles for our money.

 

This means more complexity, added weight and girth, therefore higher running costs.

 

Also you have to consider what most of the public are like when it comes to looking after their vehicles - it is fair to assume that most people reading this are conscientious owners, unlike most of the public, who see the appeal of a 20k oil change but go ballistic when given the bill for a repair.

 

I remember changing the clutch on a 1984 cav Sri I owned a long time ago - it took an hour.

 

If the clutch went on my mondeo (2001 diesel) I would have to send it over the bridge.

 

I remember the Rover SD1 been termed as a complex vehicle, certainly parts of it's bodyshell construction are, but compared to a modern car it is very basic now.

 

It's called progress.

[CIH]

Another thing to consider is the dreaded tinworm. With a few exceptions, you don't see much rust about nowadays really.

 

Have to disagree with you there dude. I spend a large portion of my day underneath a very many different cars and they just as happily rust as much as old cars, granted most of it is hiddern behind plastic.

More than anything though, especially modern cars with aluminium components, chassis parts are absolutly fooked in no time at all. I mean things like bolts that are stretched or snap or seized in place. Toyotas are especially bad for having absolutly fucked bushes in absolutly no time. Literally cars that are 3 or 4 years old with unremarkable mileage and we're having to change bushes because the factory fitted stuff is absolutly hopeless.

 

We've turned away 3 CLKs this week because the front ARB mount bolts either snapped or gave enough resistance to warrant abandoning the job.rs Cars today are literally chucked together in a massive rush with no whim whatsoever for the possability they may have to come apart again. I mean FFS almost every other car has the alloy wheels seized to the hubs due to the wheel and hub materials reacting to one another - what an utterly absurd situation to be in. Ten years ago it would be the odd one here and there, usually Ladas and early Skodas with poor quality wheels, now almost everything.

 

While I'm ranting I'd like to express my utter disgust at the constant LIE of "high quality german engineering" that is perpectuated by IDIOTS. German cars are fucking shit (well, Mercedes, BMW and most Porsche with VAG being totally indifferent) but I think that covers most of 'em. I like German people, them that I've met, but I hate cars of gernman design.

 

Thanks!

[Luxobarges_Are_Us]

German cars are fucking shit (well, Mercedes, BMW and most Porsche with VAG being totally indifferent) but I think that covers most of 'em. I like German people, them that I've met, but I hate cars of gernman design.

 

I've tended to have reasonably good luck with stuff from Köln.

[CIH]

Actually I hate cars so much I absolutly determined to get out the car trade before the summer. That, and the shite money, hours, prospects etc.

[Timewaster]

Actually I hate cars so much I absolutly determined to get out the car trade before the summer. That, and the shite money, hours, prospects etc.

 

DO IT!! 3 1/2 years since I escaped, no regrets, you will not miss it.

[eddyramrod]

I'd like to express my utter disgust at the constant LIE of "high quality german engineering" that is perpectuated by IDIOTS. German cars are fucking shit (well, Mercedes, BMW and most Porsche with VAG being totally indifferent) but I think that covers most of 'em. I like German people, them that I've met, but I hate cars of gernman design.

 

At last! I have been thinking for some years now that I might have been wrong all this time and it's just me! Thank you brother!

[Rocket88]

We do stuff on all VAG platform cars...most reliable and trouble free by a mile.......................Skoda