The summit has been reached...

[ruffgeezer]

I've been in the motor trade now for nearly 14 years, and I think we are well past the hide tide mark of decent motor manufacturing.

 

For some marques, the passing of this point may have been fairly recent, for others it is the merest glimpse of memory.

 

I'm not talking personal preference now, but actual fact, cars now will not outlast their predecessors.

 

 

I will come back later with a few examples, but feel free to grab a head start on me.

[Spiny Norman]

The number of 10 year old cars in scrapyards tends to support this idea, the amount of waste that goes on in automotive manufacture is ridiculous given we're supposed to be building "greener" cars.

They build the strongest, most rust-resistant bodyshells that have ever been made, the major mechanical bits (engines, gearboxes etc) are built to more exacting tolerances than ever before and need far less maintenance than they used to, yet people still chuck them away after 7 or 8 years because a couple of electrical components have gone pop.

 

I reckon the zenith of car build and design was some time between the mid 80s and late 90s and a lot of manufacturers (Naming no names, but... ) have gone seriously downhill in every respect since then.

 

Examples? Look how many 93/94 Pug 306s there still are. Think we'll still be seeing 308s still about in 2030?

[John F]

I reckon car design peaked in the mid-1990s, from a DIYer's perspective at any rate.

[willswitchengage]

I'd go for more an economics-approach when looking at this idea. Obviously electronics had enormously increased complexity and repair bills, but at the same time in high-GDP countries like Britain the car is treated a lot like a consumable item, you only have to visit slightly lower-income countries like the Czech Republic to see how older cars are kept on the road purely as utilitarian accessory and not an extension of somebody's personality and advertisement of their wealth as here. Also, "purchase of vehicle" as a proportion of total motoring costs is the lowest it has ever been - another reason why car turnover is currently so high. We've gone from them being your Gillete Mach 3 that you nurture and replace the blades to a throw-away Bic safety (I can vouch that they are just as good though )

 

To be fair, we're still half to blame. Obviously the other half is environmental-legislative to reduce emissions through common rail precision, catalysers, SCR, EGR what have you, but we, as consumers, do demand ever increasing levels of autonomy, safety and performance from our vehicles that were simply not available five technology years ago let alone 25.

[ashmicro]

I'd agree with the points made thus far. A mate of mine Alan owns a big oldskool local scrappy, and 10 years ago the only stuff he had was cars that were just worn out, or seriously accident damaged. Now, there are what look like not-too-badly damaged cars in there. Example 1: Sideswiped new shape Mondeo TdCdCdiT or whatever it's called. In the good old days it'd have had 2 new doors, job jobbed. Alas, it was a writeoff due to the cost of replacing all the airbags and associated trim. Example 2: Renner Grand Scenic, top spec, no damage, a bloody nice car. Consigned to the scrapheap with an electronic issue even the big Renault dealer in Belfast couldn't figure out. The cost of replacing all the ECU/SCU gubbins made it uneconomical to put right. Alan's keeping this one for himself, hoping to get a wrecked one he can get the relevant parts out of.

 

A shame, and in the Mondeo's case, a waste. Alan scored a black MG ZR 160 Trophy for next to nothing because it had a biffed back bumper (no other damage). The owner was told by the insurers "It's an old Rover sir, not worth fixing". Al told the owner he'd flog him a bumper, but the guy wasn't interested. £400 for the car.

[Cavcraft]

I wouldn't neccessarily say all new cars are five minute shit heaps but (as John said) mid 1990s seemed to be the pinnacle. Cars from that era seem far more reliable, pretty well made and mostly a doddle to work on.

[Pete-M]

Mustard mitt, the mid-90s does seem to have been a point where things were still sensible to work on, although with all the electronic stuff fitted nowadays OBD does make stuff easy when you know what you're doing.

 

The Impreza has on board diagnostics - a couple of little plugs you join under the dash to make the CHECK ENGINE light flash. It works, too. Early '90s Volvo 850s have something similar, mid '90s they went to OBDII but made it almost impossible to decode without trick diag gear. Late 90s they sorted that.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

05 plate Honda Jazz, 67'000 miles, CVT box gone tits up in a big way (chain broken and buggered the casing).

 

Weighed for scrap, gearbox in the boot in bits. New box is £6700 plus VAT. You read that correctly.

[skattrd]

I totally agree with this. My dull daily is a '99 VW Bora tdi. It's the last of the 5spd with a non-pd engine. So less powerful but more reliable than newer ones and less electronic wizardry to go wrong. It has some damage to the osf wing that was there when I got it and the paint is damaged showing bare metal, its been like that for over a year and hasn't rusted, as it was galvanised properly, again, better than newer cars.

 

An obvious example of this is Mercedes, Merc's from the late 90's onwards are generally rustier, and sometimes cheaper s/h, than the equivalent form the late 80's early 90's

[catsinthewelder]

Not meaning to be arguementitive but, would I be wrong in thinking that during the 70s and 80s the scrapyards were full of hopelessly rotten 10 year old ADO16s, Datsuns and Vauxhalls?

 

The cynical side of me wonders if the manufacturers are doing this deliberately now they don't rust away.

 

05 plate Honda Jazz, 67'000 miles, CVT box gone tits up in a big way (chain broken and buggered the casing).

 

Weighed for scrap, gearbox in the boot in bits. New box is £6700 plus VAT. You read that correctly.

 

Thats a proper piss take of a price but surely they could have sourced a replacement from a write off?

[Cavcraft]

Absolutely they were, Cats. That's the thing with nostalgia, it isn't always what it's cracked up to be. Theres probably countless reasons why cars are scrapped now and in the past, but it doesnt mean all newcars are shit.

 

In fact when you go back in time people said this new dangled fuel injection was going to cost thousands to fix when it went wrong and that airbags cost Greece's national debt to replace plus, more recently, that ECU related stuff meant main dealer only repairs at £125 an hour. The reality is that as technology moves on so does the ability for people to overcome these things with such stuff as cheap laptop programmes available to all.

[M'coli]

In the 70s and 80s it wasn't deliberate, though. Looking to the future, it has to be the case of inbuilt obsolecensce, as I imagine engines like the Twinair and the new Ford 1-litre turbo will have been "lifed" accordingly.

[gearoil]

05 plate Honda Jazz, 67'000 miles, CVT box gone tits up in a big way (chain broken and buggered the casing).

 

Weighed for scrap, gearbox in the boot in bits. New box is £6700 plus VAT. You read that correctly.

 

Blimey...

[fiatdaft]

I agree with billy,and with reference to bluejeans,you do know that honda did increase the warranty on those boxes to 7 years and 100k miles and most are cured by changing the oil,and m'coli it was deliberate back in the day due to lack of rust prevention and build quality.

[Pete-M]

I actually like new stuff. I've driven mainly new cars for work for 20+ years and don't really see much in the way of things getting worse.

 

Ok, some modern diesels are a disaster with EGR / DPF / ETC, but 15 years ago we had Alfa 146s that blew their engines before they got to 10k miles.

 

Yesterday I was driving a Skoda Superb diesel with the DSG transmission. That gearbox is immensely good, smooth changes, quick reactions and judging by the MPG computer it's more economical than the manual. The only ways to tell the thing had changed gear were the rev counter and the little gear indicator on the dash. So much smoother than the auto box in pretty much anything I've ever driven. It took a couple of minutes to get used to when I first drove one, but it's bloody brilliant once you suss it out. Mentally quick changes in Sport mode, but still smooth. Clever as.

 

No doubt the interweb is already full of stories of exploding DSG boxes but in my experience DSG is a bloody good thing.

 

I think there's a mindset that fights anything new. People who don't like new cars simply because new cars are expensive to buy, so they'd rather slate off anything obviously new whilst praising old stuff. No matter what it is, until it's 15-20 years old and pretty worthless. Then they'll say that the exact same stuff is brilliant, and it's so much better than the new shit that is churned out nowadays.

 

I worked for car hire companies from the late 80s onwards. I drove plenty of the stuff that turns up in the ebay tat thread when it was brand spanking new. Lots of it was utter shit the day it was built. Some stuff was a big leap forward from the stuff it replaced - the Mk3 Fiesta was one hell of a lot nicer to drive than the Mk2, for example. Rover 100s drove better than the last of the Metros. The Vectra was a step back from the Cavalier.

 

Driving a new Mk1 Megane and then a three month old R19 it was amazing that the old R19 remained in production for as long as it did. The Megane didn't rattle, the R19 did from new and it was miles behind the times when it came to refinement, performance and basically everything. Same when the Mk1 Focus came out, first drive in one of those and the first thing that came to mind was just how shit the last of the Escorts were, Ford had jumped from the bottom of the fun to drive league right to the top in one go. After people had tried the Focus it was nigh-on impossible to get people to accept an Escort. Other than the few who'd turn up and ask for an Escort "because the Focus looks strange", but there's no helping some folk. The hire firm I was running when the Focus came out sold all their Escorts a.s.a.p as they really didn't want to get lumbered with a load of unsaleable cars once people had tried the Focus.

 

It's always the same, things move on. 20 years ago people were scared of fuel injection, catalysts and ECUs. Now the same folks are driving turbo diesels with EGR valves, DPFs, DMFs and loads of other bollocks. In 20 years time they'll be moaning about the cost of fixing their dilithium regeneration plants and the cost of de-scaling their hydrogen tanks.

[fiatdaft]

+ 1

[Des]

It does appear that peak car design occurred before peak oil, but I think the reality is that the design brief has shifted. Cars have largely become an inconvenience necessary to shift credit, primary function has changed and the punter isn't always buying a means of transport anymore.

For a comparison let's look at the trainer, it's a plimsol and a plimsol is for walking and running and standing still and probably reached design perfection in 1970. Now look at the array of trainers available in a sports shop, a cornucopia of hideous, gaudy, offensively shaped and coloured things designed in the main to attract attention, their desirability determined by branding, incredibly, in spite of the cheap tacky looking nastiness of the things their function is to make a statement of expenditure, as a bonus they happen to be useable as shoes. I'm struck by how closely some modern cars resemble a chavvy trainer, and how the roads now resemble the playground, where worthless little shits would throw their puny weight around because mummy spunked the benefit on some white Nikes.

 

Point of order, shoes should be black, if you must 'cut a dash' then brown is acceptable. If your footwear is white then you better be stomping moccasins.

[fiatdaft]

Personally i think thats a load of horlicks.

[sporty-shite]

Personally i think thats a load of horlicks.

 

I agree Cars have always been status symbols in developed economies, and I daresay they always will be. Proof in Autoshite terms? 1970s BL badge engineering. Young "man about town"? MG. Sensible family man? Austin. Image conscious "keep up with the Jones'"? Wolseley. They were still all ADO16s.

 

As far as "the peak" goes, it's all about progress. We're shiters, we don't buy cars based on the same needs as the man in the street. The man in the street wants a bit of image, he wants safety, he wants economy, he also doesn't care about sustainability of the car, because he'll chop it in for a new one in 3-5 years. The manufacturers listen to him because he spends money. And that's all they want.

 

10-15 years from now, we'll be nursing semis over some of this stuff, and new technology will have movd on. Most of us will probably have cheap code readers, because you'll be able to get them by then, and all will be good in shite-land.

 

Either that or all the Clio DCis will have some old Perkins donkey shoved in there!

[Spiny Norman]

Not meaning to be arguementitive but, would I be wrong in thinking that during the 70s and 80s the scrapyards were full of hopelessly rotten 10 year old ADO16s, Datsuns and Vauxhalls?

 

Agreed, but the point is that in the 80s a 10 year old Marina, Avenger, Renault 5 or whatever was utterly finished.

The body was rusty, the engine was a smoking ruin and the gearbox needed two of you to change gear, but in a way that was OK, because you could take a bit of heart from the fact that you'd got your money's worth out of it, that you'd 'used it all up'.

 

When I see a car in a scrapyard that's 10 years younger than what I drive and looks in better nick, yet is consigned to the jaws of death I can't help feeling that we've got it a bit wrong somehow.

[fiatdaft]

No it wasn't ok then either,they were there because they were fucked and unwanted just like 10 year old cars are now,a 10 year old car is not a modern,just like it wasn't 30 years ago,look at it with no rose tinted specs on and put into perspective.

[ruffgeezer]

It isn't really rose tinted specs though, I've been working on cars since I was 16, from Bmw dealers to scrap yards and between, there are some cars that are fairly new now, that will, eventually, be uneconomical to repair on the basis of a headlight bulb replacement! That is utterly fucked.

 

Mostly it is electronic wankery that will see them off, some they have completely omitted any rust prevention, christ on a lot of newer "cheaper" cars, they don't even paint the underside of the bonnet ffs!

[John F]

Agreed, but the point is that in the 80s a 10 year old Marina, Avenger, Renault 5 or whatever was utterly finished.

The body was rusty, the engine was a smoking ruin and the gearbox needed two of you to change gear, but in a way that was OK, because you could take a bit of heart from the fact that you'd got your money's worth out of it, that you'd 'used it all up'.

 

When I see a car in a scrapyard that's 10 years younger than what I drive and looks in better nick, yet is consigned to the jaws of death I can't help feeling that we've got it a bit wrong somehow.

 

Yep. By & large, cars sold in the mid-90s were actually pretty good at being reliable and well-built transport. By then, most mainstream manufacturers had sorted out engine longevity and rot problems. I see quite a lot of 15-20 year old tackle on the roads, still looking quite fresh and driving nicely even with a couple of hundred thousand miles on the clock.

[Guest]

Think I can some it up with my latest.

2002 Merc C220CDI. 141 k FSH.

Cheap as a few knocks etc paid £2k with 10months test.

Had it a week.

Went into limp mode. Main dealer wanted £100+ just to plug it in to tell me the fault. They suggested cat, ECU, MAF sensor, EGR valve etc etc......

Glad I didn't pay as got it done free - no fault registered. Hmmmm Ok.

I spent hours looking,(i mean hours the learning curve from a 1994 405 diseasel is steep)and found a split waste gate actuator vacuum pipe.

 

Now if I was J. Pulbic, that would have been £100+ plus VAT then a trail of new parts the cheapest being a MAF @ £65 on a £2k car......wonder why they get scrapped.

 

Don't get me started on the point of todays mechanics being parts fitters..........Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Station]

I havew no idea what modern Vauxhalls are like, but the amount of mk3 Astrays and Cavs on the road still.

[vulgalour]

I like cars, regardless of age, though I am more fond of the older stuff for one simple reason: feedback. The vast majority of new-new cars and nearly-new cars I've driven have felt numb and I've not felt comfortable because I don't feel like I know what the car is doing. So I buy and enjoy shitters because they're more satisfying to drive and cheaper than a gym membership (just). But when it comes to obsolescence, I do see where people are coming from.

 

Cars have always had a degree of disposability to them, fashions change, the driver's wants and needs change and if cars never broke you'd end up with the Volvo Problem. Unfortunately, as much as it annoys me to admit it, economically cars have to be disposable to keep the car companies and the advances in technology progressing. It's not enough to buy a car and keep it forever, that car needs to be more economical, safer, more stylish and more in keeping with the needs of the user. Can you imagine if we were still puttering about in Morris Eights (rhetorical question, I know you all can)? Too slow, too poorly made, too unsafe, sooo old fashioned!

 

It's not to say I personally like the way car manufacturers force the hand of the buying public to get their latest gimmick, but since I'm never going to be in a position to afford a brand new car it's not something I can really have any say in, I'll just mop up the elderly rust buckets and keep throwing the odd fistful of coins at them to get me from a to b.

[Pete-M]

I like cars, regardless of age, though I am more fond of the older stuff for one simple reason: feedback.

 

Ah, that is something that has been said for as long as I've been driving. It's also true quite often. Drive a car from 1980 and there's a good chance that even on a perfect example you have to have the feel for it, otherwise it'll crunch going into 3rd, which way it'll pull under braking, you have to keep it going in a straight line past lorries on the motorway and have to know exactly how much choke it takes depending on the weather. All things you need a degree of feel for.

 

Also all things that you really don't need on the average modern car unless something has gone seriously wrong.. Other than the Pious, I've not driven a modern car that gets blown off course when passing trucks. Most have vastly better brakes than on their 70's equivalent. Everything has fuel injection so there's no need for a choke. With the exception of the current Corsa it's difficult to buy a car with a crap gearchange, and I can't think of a four speed manual car you can buy new.

 

Yes, things on modern stuff breaks. It was always so. Pinto camshafts, Renault liners, Void bushes, king pins, leaf springs, master cylinders, VV carbs, diffs, lever arm dampers, window regulators, dynamos, magnetos, coils, points, trembler coils, glow plugs... but some modern stuff will do 400k without ever taking the rocker cover off. Only 20 years ago people considered 100k miles to be a major risk. I had major issues 20 years ago trying to sell an absolutely immaculate Cortina 2.0 Crusader estate with 120k on the clock. The thing was absolutely mint, had to fight to get £650 for it when it was 10 years old. AVR 49Y I think it was. Nowadays 100k is nothing to worry about, there are plenty of modern cars out there that have done 100k and only needed one set of brake pads, a few tyres and five or six oil services. Even shock absorbers often last for 120-130k before needing replacement now.

 

There's also the safety thing. Airbags, ABS, seat belt pretensioners, traction control, crumple zones, side impart bars, fuel cut off switches, deformable structures, engines that don't sit on your lap in a crash, pedals that move away from your feet on impact, laminated windscreens, tinted glass and nothing to impale yourself on in a crash. You have a big collision in a modern and there's a good chance the door will still open after the crash and you'll step out unharmed. I was chatting to a chap last week who was cut out of a Toyota Avensis after it was hit by an articulated truck that didn't even slow at a set of red lights. Ok, he was cut out of it, but there wasn't a mark on him. He was a bit shaken up and sore but the only reason they cut him out of the car was because he tweaked his back, the doors still opened on the Avensis. Spare wheel was under the back seat and the tailgate had imploded, but the passenger compartment was basically still there. They'd have bagged the body if he'd been in a 604 or Mk2 Granada.

 

Not everything is rosy. Cars weigh insane amounts now. A Mk5 Golf diesel is heavier than a Mk2 Granada, ffs. A Mk4 Mondeo is quite a bit bigger than a Mk2 Granada..For some insane reason engine development seems to have been concentrated on the diesel engine, so throttle response is a rare treat. Everything is servo assisted, remote control and / or electric. I don't mind this as I love cars with gadgets. Unfortunately the safety aspect of new stuff has resulted in less visibility because of the bigger pillars used now, but trying to reverse park a Mk2 Astra GTE or Mk2 Golf 3dr wasn't very different. Pillars used to a lot closer than they are now as windscreens have got more raked with time. It's hard to reach the base of the screen in a modern Golf, in an MGB it's not hard to rap your knuckles accidentally on the screen.

 

People were no doubt saying the same things when mud guards and dash boards were introduced. "This modern stuff is rubbish, I miss driving home getting shit flung at me by the wheels. Now you have to wash the dashboard, it's just stuff to go wrong. Don't get me started on electric lighting, have you seen the lights on those new Spagthorpes? 20 watts of light! Why would anyone need that much light. It dazzles me. Then there's those four wheel brakes, that's just dangerous. If a car with those stops suddenly there's no way of avoiding it. Bloody dangerous. Rubber tyres? Stupid invention. When the air leaks out you have to stop and change them. Wood is the only thing to build wheels from. Those new fangled twin cylinder engines, rubbish. Twice as much to break."

[fiatdaft]

It isn't really rose tinted specs though, I've been working on cars since I was 16, from Bmw dealers to scrap yards and between, there are some cars that are fairly new now, that will, eventually, be uneconomical to repair on the basis of a headlight bulb replacement! That is utterly fucked.

 

 

Only if somebody was stupid .

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

I agree with billy,and with reference to bluejeans,you do know that honda did increase the warranty on those boxes to 7 years and 100k miles and most are cured by changing the oil,and m'coli it was deliberate back in the day due to lack of rust prevention and build quality.

 

Only if it has full Honda history and you can do the Riverdance backwards. This was almost a year ago and it still sticks in my mind as being utterly ridiculous.

Like faulty Audi Multitronic units. an oil change doesn't often cure them. Honda says it does, rebuilders say it won't. The fault is normally a failed starter clutch that causes the violent shudder on take off. Honda sell a clutch set for £500 but it's still a £2000 gearbox out job assuming the cones aren't too badly damaged although they can be reground and a new chain fitted. The forwards and reverse drums are not available.

 

Breakers know the value of a good used box as well.

[fiatdaft]

No,they do warranty work on the without full honda history,you call the honda dealer and mention bulletin number HUK000000001117,they book you in,they change the gearbox oil and ask you drive for at least 200 miles,if the shuddering is still there,they change the box.