In general, what do you most dislike about modern cars?

[NorfolkNWeigh]

I can't dislike a car just because of when it was made , I have irrational likes and dislikes of cars of all ages. Often these will change with time and I'll find myself wishing I'd bought something that was everywhere for pennies , and either ignored or worse engine/ gearbox/ interior raped and weighed - Rover P6 and Corsair 2000e for example. Or just didn't bother ,but now have the desire when they're 10x what I'd like to pay Citroen CX For example.

I hated Bini's when they first came out and find some of the newest ones pretty offensive, but I know it's almost inevitable we'll end up with one in the family sooner or later,( I've got 4 daughters FFS ) and I've driven a few,so know they're fun.

I love Citroen Cactuses( Cacti ?) , but know I'd never buy one , same wth those Kia R Souls or whatever. The variety of different cars on the road these days has got to be good for the future of shite, in 30 years time every car left will be the last of that type ,there are about 9 different body styles of BMW 3/4 Series for example.

[Bren]

Over complicated electrical systems where even a discharged battery can flag up faults.

Who thought electric power assistance on steering was a good idea? Ditto electronic handbrakes.

[dollywobbler]

Generally, it's the lack of suspension. My sister-in-law's Skoda Octavia is absolutely horrific but more depressingly, my father-in-law's Peugeot 308 is little better. What happened France? You used to make cars that delivered comfort AND handling. The Cactus is hideously lacking in compliance too.

 

Surprisingly, the first-gen Hyundai i10 is really pretty good for a small car. Certainly substantially better than a Fiesta. The Citroen C5 manages to mix coil springs and comfort too - so it can be done. I'm just staggered that people care so little about their own comfort.

[xtriple]

As has been said before; visibility.  All modern cars seem to have absolutely crap outwards vision, and I really don't like that.

 

However, I don't think you can blame the car makers themselves for most of the current problems with modern cars, it's all the various governments mandating stuff like: Pedestrian protection, roll over protection, airbags... you all know, I'm not going to list them all.

 

All of this has increased weight massively, complexity and cost have gone through the roof.

 

Too many politicians all wanting their say/sticking their oar in/wanting to make a name for themselves.

[martc]

The fact that the spare wheel is in the boot and there are brakes on all four wheels.

[cros]

Modern cars are cleverer and often more competant than ever before but this seems to have had the unfortunate effect that owners have become disconnected from them. Often expensive ones are driven with the same distain that a child shows a battered toy. I watched an Evoque and an A5 driving side by side as they joined the M25 at the perpetually crowded Dartford crossing. I was in a lorry in the inside lane with the pair of fuckwits getting closer and closer on my nearside. Both appeared willing to let their 30000 quid cars be squashed between me and the concrete wall rather than give way to each other as they ran out of road. Those things must feel too safe inside.

[HMC]

I can see how optimising the structure for crash safety tests has had the effect of reducing visibility ( had the alfa 166 on a long m/way run for th first time yesterday, and was suprised just how poor rear 3/4 visibility was) But what do you recon is the reason why ride quality has got so much worse? Are they following feedback from customer "clinics" or is it manufacturer lead? Performance cars aside I wonder why most manufacturers produce kit that suits a billiard table surface that certainly doesn't exist where I live.

[John F]

Essexman, on 29 Oct 2015 - 1:30 PM, said:Essexman , on 29 Oct 2015 - 1:30 PM, said:

But what do you recon is the reason why ride quality has got so much worse?

 

Large wheels with low profile tyres, fitted by manufacturers in response to a perceived need to make even their base models look sharp and aggressive.

[Sloth in a bowl]

No, there's no way for the user to turn them off other than removing the bulb(s).

 

 

There usually is if you read the manual.

However the chance of most users reading the manual is low enough that 'no way to turn them off' is near enough to reality to be true.

[TataBobu]

You have access to the manual if you bought the bloody thing, not if you rent it.

[doobietoo]

The steering.... ever since they started putting in 55 zillion links in so the column doesn't crush your ribs its been crap.... you just have no idea what the front wheels are doing.... and no idea of where the limit of adhesion is....

[Junkman]

I dislike the entire philosophy behind moderns. The idea of what the actual purpose of a car is, has been completely lost on a general principle, due to several aspects it has been buried underneath.

 

- Cars are made to fit "market segments", which are made up phantasy products of the marketing industry (a completely redundant business sector altogether). Consequently, I fail to understand who modern cars are made for and what purpose they are supposed to serve.

 

- Due to the above, cars are also deliberately made to be not as good as they could be. They are made to meet their imaginary business segment. This is a slap in the face of every real engineer.

 

- When the car had reached a reasonable degree of maturity in terms of reliability, performance and safety around its 100th birthday, the next development should have been to optimize it in terms of efficiency, sustainability and ecological palatability, i.e. consolidate its status quo. Instead, they were crammed with pointless and impractical gadgets suggesting a demand, that in reality doesn't exist. 'Modern' cars are first and foremost an answer to a question nobody asked. They turned into gimmick ridden behemoths, the gimmicks being falsely perceived as progress. In reality, there hasn't been any real innovation in at least half a century.

 

- I hate driving modern cars. They feel artificial and I can't stand the tutelage, dictation and patronisation I constantly receive from them.

 

- I don't have an alternative. All modern cars are the same patronising shits crammed with rubbish I don't need or want.

 

- I don't like their looks. I know this is subjective, but I find them ugly. There isn't a car made today which's sight I could tolerate in my front garden. This has been the case since automotive styling died about 30 years ago, to be replaced with something that looks to me as appetising as cockroaches or pill bugs.

 

- Due to the wrong track I outlined above, but which the entire car industry decided to persue about 30 years ago (which is the reason I left the industry in 1990 never to return), it is now entangled in the environmental and legal issues I predicted back then and which we see today left, right and centre. It is on the brink of bankrupcy at any given moment and due to the fascist World government structure that was allowed to put itself into place during the same period, it is bailed out with my and my children's tax money on a regular basis, for which I have little understanding, let alone tolerance, and it is actually this, what I hate most about modern cars and their makers.

[cort1977]

I'm worried that I agree with Junkman's post.  

 

Also agree with lack of suspension travel and massive wheels making the ride on moderns terrible.   Friends of ours have one of those Aldi Q7 things with 21 inch wheels from the factory!  

 

Matey did say 'it's not very good over bumps' - probably not a very good car for driving round Houston then is it?   We have spectacularly shit roads due to clay soils and the idea that taxes = socialism.

 

I know we do this every two weeks but so what?   I like a good moan with like minded dissenters from the consumerist groupthink once in a while.

[dugong]

People.

 

VAG.

 

Kia.

 

Inverted snobbery.

[dollywobbler]

Regarding suspension, I'm convinced that some of the problem is that modern car journalists seem to be a bunch of willy-waving speed freaks who absolutely panned any car that didn't get a bit 'lairy' on a race track. Even if it was conceived to take families across cities. Certainly, that sort of rubbish is why I cancelled my Autocar subscription back in about 2002. 

 

Another problem is I just don't see any of the media panning cars for having horrendously shit suspension. They seem more interested in whether Bluetooth is fitted, or whether the wheels 'fit the arches.' Long gone are the days when modern car journos would give sensible feedback to anyone at all, but then long gone are the days when cars were engineer-driven rather than marketing-clap-trap driven. Not that this was always a good thing - take note Issigonis...

[dugong]

I wish the classic car press would stop acting apologist for the appalling dross 'our' industry put out over the years.

[solid61]

Depreciation is the killer for me with moderns,I have to admit I quite like some of them but couldn't afford the financial hit.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

The noise they make. Everything now a 2 litre 4 pot diesel and that's why your ears strain to the unpleasant sound of a prestige* car surging by. In the Good Old Days TM, cars had distinct sounds. You could tell an 1100 from a Mini even though they had the same engine and box. The farting Minor, rasping Beetle and the odd low pitched howling noise a Marina makes. Gearbox sounds vanished as manufacturers made helical gears smaller and the teeth more angled.

I miss the simplicity of old cars. Here is a radio. Volume, tone, channels, job done.

 

I don't mind modern cars, but I find the appeal wears off very, very quickly. I had a new 520d for a day recently and the engine noise at idle/low speeds was Transitesque. It was a nice car but not nice enough to hold my awe and rapture for more than a fortnight. Replace the BMW badge with a Mercedes or Toyota one and you'd be about there.

 

Cars are cheaper in real terms than they have ever been. 20 years ago if you'd equipped a 520i with leather, air con, alloys, CD player etc etc, it would have cost about the same 30k as they cost now. But they're just not interesting enough to be worth the money.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

I wish the classic car press would stop acting apologist for all the appalling dross 'our' industry put out over the years.

 

 

Indeed. The Triumph TR6, MGC etc were both horrible, horrible cars. I mean really bad. And then you see a classic car dealer asking £9995 for a piece of shit like the Austin 3 Litre,  a car seemingly destined for the banger track at the design stage. Sorry Crispin, that fucking thing is worth 1500 quid tops in reality but there is always some dumb fuck with more money than brain cells.

 

Back to motoring writers (very few are journalists).....'Chris 'Monkey' Harris who you either like or despise did write an article in EGO a while back bemoaning the lack of ride comfort in modern cars. He put it down to cheap, shit dampers and strong springs. Everything has to be tested on the Nurburgring (why?), and everything has to be shouty and aggressive.

 

I just stand back and view the whole thing with detachment and amusement. A mate of mine bought a nearly new Skoda Superb 2.0 diesel Estate last year, 25 grand it was. It rides like a bullock dray and looks like a hearse.  Another mate bought an immaculate one owner 2006 Peugeot 607 HDi with about 30'000 miles on the clock from a dealer in town, £2995. And I can guarantee you it's a much, much nicer car to drive and ride in.

 

The problem? Most people are simply stupid and/or lacking in common sense..

[dugong]

Indeed. The Triumph TR6, MGC etc were both horrible, horrible cars. I mean really bad. And then you see a classic car dealer asking £9995 for a piece of shit like the Austin 3 Litre,  a car seemingly destined for the banger track at the design stage. Sorry Crispin, that fucking thing is worth 1500 quid tops in reality but there is always some dumb fuck with more money than brain cells.

 

Back to motoring writers (very few are journalists).....'Chris 'Monkey' Harris who you either like or despise did write an article in EGO a while back bemoaning the lack of ride comfort in modern cars. He put it down to cheap, shit dampers and strong springs. Everything has to be tested on the Nurburgring (why?), and everything has to be shouty and aggressive.

 

I just stand back and view the whole thing with detachment and amusement. A mate of mine bought a nearly new Skoda Superb 2.0 diesel Estate last year, 25 grand it was. It rides like a bullock dray and looks like a hearse.  Another mate bought an immaculate one owner 2006 Peugeot 607 HDi with about 30'000 miles on the clock from a dealer in town, £2995. And I can guarantee you it's a much, much nicer car to drive and ride in.

 

The problem? Most people are simply stupid and/or lacking in common sense..

Disagree on the TR6 but with you on the MGC - and I'm speaking from the inside. Credit where it's due, brickbats for the rest.

 

Also: the term 'classic car' is diachronic. I'm sick of this 'post-1975 cars can't be classic' bollocks. It's a tired argument of which I'm tired of hearing. I still don't understand why my 1997 MGF is allowed in the classic section of car shows, though. Wait - it's British.

 

I wouldn't have given £2995 for a 607, either.

[Mr A Lawrence]

What I don't like about "moderns" is the way they just start up, what's wrong with a bit of ignition key lottery every now and then?

 

or the way the lights shine all the way up the road, I only like to see what's 10 feet in front of me.

 

And the radios? Don't get me started there, who wants crisp, clear stereo sound when you can have a bit of coil crackle with your radio2 golden hour?

 

And I particularly don't like the fact that one key fob opens ALL the doors, what's wrong with leaning over to pull the button on all the other doors?

 

But what especially gets my goat is the way these "modern" cars heat up inside so quickly!! Nothing wrong with using a cloth to clean the windscreen till halfway between Liverpool and Manchester!!

 

Fuck modern cars!!

[John F]

Andy the tyre man, on 29 Oct 2015 - 4:40 PM, said:

What I don't like about "moderns" is the way they just start up, what's wrong with a bit of ignition key lottery every now and then?

 

or the way the lights shine all the way up the road, I only like to see what's 10 feet in front of me.

 

And the radios? Don't get me started there, who wants crisp, clear stereo sound when you can have a bit of coil crackle with your radio2 golden hour?

 

And I particularly don't like the fact that one key fob opens ALL the doors, what's wrong with leaning over to pull the button on all the other doors?

 

But what especially gets my goat is the way these "modern" cars heat up inside so quickly!! Nothing wrong with using a cloth to clean the windscreen till halfway between Liverpool and Manchester!!

 

Fuck modern cars!!

 

You can have all that in a 25-year old Cavalier...

[carlo]

This is the usual fdb long-winded post. Ignore everything below, just say what you don't like about modern cars.

 

Or read this if you really want. For me it's a lack of suspension on many modern cars. I detest the overweight problem too, as I do the general lack of engineering refinement even in more expensive machines - everything seems to rely on electronics and brute force to make things work. A modern Jag is a good example - crap ride, some with 4 cylinder inline engines and a feel of over-design yet lack of consideration to fine detail, which Jags tradtionally had, no matter how cheaply they were made. They don't even look much to my eyes.

 

But it's the lack of suspension which really pisses me off. It's yet another sop to both fashion/image and those who think they are good drivers. Where I live it's a serious handicap - the 5 or 6 miles to the nearest main road have poor foundations, poor surfaces and are full of twists and turns. Get on the main road and if you wish to make swift progress, it also turns bumpy above certain speeds. When a car's body and chassis follow the wheels up and down too faithfully, it grows unstable at a lower speed than one which allows the wheels to move freely. Watch any successful rally car.

 

Shallow-as-a-property-agent sidewalls transmit almost all higher frequency bumps to the suspension, which is so often over-stiff, so it's less able to maintain a constant pressure on the road - what does that mean? Less grip and stability. Travelling at speed on anything other than a motorway is bloody uncomfortable as well as less stable. Perhaps few people drive surreptitiously and properly quickly any more, so it doesn't matter?

 

I've driven a 45hp Renault 4 recently and it was a master of making good speed over a variety of roads. There was no lack of cornering ability round faster corners - a particularly fast 90^o bend with a smooth surface and no undulations was quite relaxed at a speed at which a Focus begins to grow fidgety, though not from a lack of grip. In the dry. In the wet, the little French machine from the 50s was unmatched by most modern motors for its serenity through corners, whether bumpy or not. The tyres moulded themselves to the road, the suspension was honest enough to deflect to the cornering forces and instead of unloading the inside tyres, the suspension actually allowed the body to heel. Result, within reason (it wouldn't work on a racetrack), there's more grip.

 

What have we achieved from an owner's perspective in 50 years, over the better cars which were being made in the 50s and 60s? - superb Renault 4s and 16s, various Citroëns with a logic and perfection of engineering which bettered the best aircraft technology, spacious BMC designs which make modern stuff look like dungeons, MGs which made you grin, Saabs which were simple, tough, fast and refined, Volvos which were more faithful and honest than your dog, Jaguars which even the French coveted, Italian cars which rendered anything German totally irrelevant, as well as setting female hearts racing, Rovers which instantly and unquestioningly raised your social status two notches by being so decent and well-mannered, and not least the deep sense of satisfaction to own and use something from Murrica.

 

We've improved crashability, which is more likely to happen in a car with poor visibility and which induces general boredom. We've lost a tactility, the deep desire to own or much affection once purchased. Add to that beautiful sounds and smells and not least, fine suspension and ride. But we've electronicked the points so servicing can happen never, if you wish and the exhaust is officially cleaner. Fords and Vauxhalls have got relatively good, better makes have gone to the wall or been bought by crap makes and made less good, but way more pricey. No surprise then, that this forum is so lively.

 

I don't care how often we debate this topic, that's one of the best posts I've read for a while and sums up all my grievances about modern cars far more eloquently than I ever could.

 

I'll add my bit though:

 

Suspensions, as many have mentioned.  Give a modern a decent suspension, like the Citroen C3, and the journos moan it's too 'wallowy'.  So now Citroen have jumped on the bandwagon.

Poor visibility, which is dangerous.

The obsession with connectivity, bluetooth, ICE etc etc 

The relegation of a car's dynamic competence to an irrelevance

The lack of any distinct brand identity (Chrysler Delta?) resulting in a lack of any brand loyalty.  

Software, software, software

[Craig the Princess]

I wish the classic car press would stop acting apologist for all the appalling dross 'our' industry put out over the years.

 

Maybe this should be on a seperate thread, but I'm not sure the classic car press slagging off various different models would do any good at all.

 

There are enough "Allegros are shit", "Drop a piano on a Marina" or "Yugos were so bad NATO bombed the factory to stop them making them" merchants out there as it is. By all means mention a cars short comings espically in a comparison piece, but any car that can still survive regular use 30/40/50 years on must get some credit as must the enthusiam of the owners who keep them going.

[dugong]

I didn't say 'slag off', Craig, I said 'act as apologist for'. There has to be a yardstick of quality and blindly sticking up for everything regardless is as bad as condemning them all to blazes.

 

Respect where respect's due. Everything else is fair game.

 

Fine, yeah. It must be me.

 

Bracing for semantic argument.

[Justin Case]

The advertising.

[trigger]

I like my new Focus, it's probably the best I've owned to be honest and a vast improvement over the old model IMO, The rear visibility is poor on most moderns although rear parking sensors are a god send even if you do end up probably being a worse driver for it.

 

Oversized 18-19" wheels with rubber band tyres are frankly shit, they give the worse ride imaginable and even the smallest pothole results in a blowout so completely pointless in this country, Stop/Start is a pain in the arse and diesel engines are now over complicated with their EGR valves, DMF's, weak injectors and DPF's.

 

BUT would you sooner do 10000-15000 miles a year with your family in a 20 year old Mondeo or a 5 year old Mondeo? Which car would you sooner be in a 70mph motorway accident in?. Harsh but these things happen and I for one are grateful that modern cars are getting better and safer.

[Junkman]

BUT would you sooner do 10000-15000 miles a year with your family in a 20 year old Mondeo or a 5 year old Mondeo?

 

Hell no! The absolute newest car I'd want for that is my 1984 Granada Ghia.

[doobietoo]

Is it wrong to say I like the Austin 3 litre and hopefully will own one again one day along with a Landcrab. But then I also like Allegros, 1100s and own one of each so I guess there is just no hope for me.....

[dollywobbler]

Indeed. The Triumph TR6, MGC etc were both horrible, horrible cars. I mean really bad. And then you see a classic car dealer asking £9995 for a piece of shit like the Austin 3 Litre,  a car seemingly destined for the banger track at the design stage. Sorry Crispin, that fucking thing is worth 1500 quid tops in reality but there is always some dumb fuck with more money than brain cells.

My mate is one of those 'dumb fucks'. Thing is, I found his 3-Litre fascinating to drive. Sure, judged against the standards of the time, it's pretty lame, but I really, really enjoyed driving it for all of its faults. All old cars have faults. They should be enjoyed despite them. Though I'd never claim they were brilliant. They aren't. Nor are Stags, but I still love the way they look and sound - which tends to be more important when it comes to classic cars than outright dynamics. Or reliability.

 

Back to motoring writers (very few are journalists).....'Chris 'Monkey' Harris who you either like or despise did write an article in EGO a while back bemoaning the lack of ride comfort in modern cars. He put it down to cheap, shit dampers and strong springs. Everything has to be tested on the Nurburgring (why?), and everything has to be shouty and aggressive.

Now that is amusing, because it's writers like Harris that are entirely to blame I reckon! I got utterly sick of every week, him testing yet another Impreza against yet another Mitsu Evo. He was a key contributor at Autocar at a time where the magazine complained that a Mk4 Golf Cabriolet was a bit dull to drive because the back end wouldn't come out no matter how hard you tried. I just applauded VW for making a car that wasn't inherently dangerous. They used to rave about the Ka being fun, which is perhaps why I know of so many that have been crashed due to lift-off oversteer.