Life expectancy of high-end cars

Voodoomelon

I suppose this is a bit of a progression from the hero to zero thread, but it got me thinking.

Say you drop €130,000 on a new S-class, 7 series or A8 or the like, chances are you have very deep pockets. The car manufacturer knows this, and also knows that the chances of you holding onto that car beyond 2-3 years are very low.

Do you believe that these high end cars are made to fall apart after the warranty expires? The reason I bring it up is because several members (in the US) of another forum I use have first hand experience of mechanics and dealers telling them to their face that these cars are designed to hold up for the first few years of ownership, to give the first time owner the best experience possible, before essentially crapping out just after they sell it on.

Now this certainly isn't true of all high end cars, and i'd go as far as to say that this really doesn't apply to older models like 1995-2002 of the models mentioned above, if anything its the more recent models that have so many problems. The W220 S-class has had awful trouble with electrical problems and moisture problems. The E65 7 series was an absolute nightmare in so many ways i don't even want to start writing about, I really don't know if i'd touch one with a barge poll after reading what I have about them. Actually this video about sums it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQCvvnVDQIo&feature=PlayList&p=2B62D8F2D08B7008&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9

So what do you think, do you reckon these cars are designed to be money making machines for the manufacturer? Could it be possible that it costs so much to research and manufacture these low selling cars that its necessary to recoup the cost through extended warranties and and parts and labour? Or do you think that its all a load of nonesense and that these cars are subject to the same problems and issues that could effect any other car?

I'm kind of sitting on the fence on this one, some of the above sounds plausible; these cars are fully loaded with incredibly complicated computer controlled electrical and engine mangement systems and the manufacturers are constantly competing with each other to see who can fit the most amount of gadgets into their flagship model, so surely they have to be bombarded with hundreds, if not thousands of potential problems. They also tend to house the latest and newest technology, so the designers are often entering unchartered territory when it comes to these new driver aids and advanced gimmicks.

What do you think?

pred racer

Holy crap...... Having said that i have no experience of high end motors, so I cant really comment. I dont even think it would be possible to design something that precisely to fail after the warranty period. I always presumed that second hand luxo barges were a great buy as the depreciation was done and they would be the best built yokes around, looks like ill have to revise my opinion.

A bit OT but if that happened to you here would there be any chance of getting a refund?? not of merchantable quality, not fit for purpose etc, etc.

Ive also experienced the "theres nothing wrong with it" syndrome with an opel vectra (1 year old 20k miles) I could hear the ticking noise from the engine but opel couldn't, luckily enough I managed to convince them something was wrong....... the timing belt tensioner bearings had failed:eek:

Guy:Incognito

Voodoomelon wrote: »

I I really don't know if i'd touch one with a barge poll after reading what I have about them. Actually this video about sums it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQCvvnVDQIo&feature=PlayList&p=2B62D8F2D08B7008&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9

Does that not completely disproved the theory? Those cars are under a year old so they are not lasting the initial few years. Modern cars have lots more electrical components , which means lots of stuff can go wrong.

Voodoomelon

Well I suppose the theory as such is not that the car magically falls apart as soon as the warranty expires, but that these cars are no where near as over engineered as they used to be and are simply churned out by the manufacturer much like any other car and aren't designed to be reliable beyond the first or second owner. Whereas you would expect a car of this caliber and price to be cutting edge with the utmost in reliability and refinement, its seems they are subject to the same problems, plus many many more, as a standard car.

robtri

I wouldn't be at all surprised that these cars wheren't the most reliable, lets face it the manufacturers know that the first owner, the guy who is paying the megabucks is only keeping it for a year or two, so fill it with every gizmo under the sun, first owner is happy as a pig in sh%t and hope the gizmo's last the first owners average ownership period.
As this is the guy who is paying the manufacturer money, the manufacturer doesn't make money on second hand cars....
and then if parts do break after the first owner at least the manufacturer has a chance of getting more money from the next owners as the repair or replace parts...

Cars are nearly like white goods, manufacturers do not make much money unless new cars are bought used, discarded and new ones bought....

TomMc

As above most mainstream luxury cars today are mass-produced and under engineered. Engines and gearboxes may be bulletproof (will do big mileage without the need for rebuilds) but they are only as reliable as the electronics that go with them. Cars have become quite complex and with many parts sealed or largely inaccessible (at least quickly), this pushes up costs when things do go wrong. Build quality and panel gaps may have improved, but often the materials used certainly not - more about aesthetics than precision, strength, functionality or practicalities. And more and more they come from a manufacturers generic parts bin (of lesser models), economies of scale and all that. Even leather interiors are poor compared with the past. High end cars will usually innovate or showcase new technologies first, before been truly tried and tested. If they work they filter down to other models in the range. Gadgets, gizmos, gimmicks etc so it is no surprise they play up a few years down the line.

Manufactures are run by accountants now so market share (volume) and bottom line is all that matters. This leads to an inferior product. If they want to showboat, they usually build niche cars like the Bugatti Veyron, rather than over engineer their own bread and butter models. Mercedes use to do things differently, when engineers ran things, not accountants. In their heyday even Lancia built their cars at a loss, just to show what they could do.

Dartz

Voodoomelon wrote: »

So what do you think, do you reckon these cars are designed to be money making machines for the manufacturer?

Yes, they are. It's called planned obsolescence. After a certain amount of time, a manufacturer will stop providing spare parts to a vehicle model, as it becomes more and more expensive to retain a stock of spare parts for a model that is further and further past it's sell by date.

10 years is a good average.

The idea is that the cheaper you can build a car, the more profit you can make from it's sale. The expectation at this point is that the owner of the old model will give up trying to find parts for his car, and just buy a new one.

IIRC, Mercedes keeps a stock of parts for models back to the 1960's. And I know it's possible to get new parts for 1980's BMW motorcycles...

Voodoomelon

I'd certainly agree with the comments regarding materials used, newer models have lots of inferior cabin materials than older ones, most notably leather. Modern leather has a very synthetic feel to it which probably lasts a lot longer, however it looses that special feel to it that the older models had. Same goes for even buttons on the dash, they've lost their tactile feel. I wonder what the markup on these cars actually is, once all costs have been factored in.

Stevie Dakota

The E65 was a disaster when launched, but BMW have a habit of doing that, NEVER buy one in year 1 or even 2. I also read that the last E34's were less reliable than the first, go figure.

Linoge

Dartz wrote: »

The idea is that the cheaper you can build a car, the more profit you can make from it's sale. The expectation at this point is that the owner of the old model will give up trying to find parts for his car, and just buy a new one.

I don't think that people go from owning a 20 year old obsolete car to buying a brand new vehicle (and of the same make). There is no expectation of this.

At the end of it all, most cars, esp the German high end marques that are being talked about in this thread build their brand image on build quality. To think that they engineer them to fail after a certain number of years is pretty ludicrous. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Mr.David

Linoge wrote: »

To think that they engineer them to fail after a certain number of years is pretty ludicrous.

+1

There is a conspiracy forum for such ridiculousness!

seclachi

Mr.David wrote: »

+1

There is a conspiracy forum for such ridiculousness!

It happens, but I dont think its a conspiracy so much as good ole capitalism. Why make a long lasting product when by consumer law it only has to last a year. Theres alot of science behind how long products will last, simply because there is massive losses to be made if you put out a cruddy product. The bathtub curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve) is used in alot of calculations, its based off information calculated from older products and stress testing. The basic idea is that products tend to fail in two periods, in the first few months/weeks when it leaves the factory, and then in the later stages in its life. So a product may have a 5% failure rate in the first month, .05% after the first year, and then after 10 years it could be 40%.

This is useful for them to know for a number of reasons, it gives them an idea of how much losses they could make from defective products and it gives them an idea of how long any extended warrentys they sell should be. So if something has a .5 failure rate after 5 years it`ll probably be profitable to sell a warrenty on that, but if its 10% it could be a loss. Anything they make has to last a year at least due to consumer law so they always do there best to reduce early defects. This means they cant really get away with crappy materials or a rubbish product as they will get murdered by the losses. I guess it also means the age of the product will be increased by good engineering used to save on early breakages. Reliablity is an interesting subject, and any consumer should have a look at it.

As for the cars themselves, its pretty likely they arent built to last, the biggest cause is probably electronics, as there are so many components jammed in there its pretty likely one will fail and cause trouble.

Its a nice thought to think of some of the cowboys we have seen over the last few years trying to keep one of these yokes going after a few years when they cant afford something new. (then again they`d probably just sell it on.)

Owen

I heard it brilliantly put by a Mechanic one day. Cars used to be made to last. Now, they're built to be recycled.

Voodoomelon

seclachi wrote: »

It happens, but I dont think its a conspiracy so much as good ole capitalism. Why make a long lasting product when by consumer law it only has to last a year. Theres alot of science behind how long products will last, simply because there is massive losses to be made if you put out a cruddy product. The bathtub curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve) is used in alot of calculations, its based off information calculated from older products and stress testing. The basic idea is that products tend to fail in two periods, in the first few months/weeks when it leaves the factory, and then in the later stages in its life. So a product may have a 5% failure rate in the first month, .05% after the first year, and then after 10 years it could be 40%.

This is useful for them to know for a number of reasons, it gives them an idea of how much losses they could make from defective products and it gives them an idea of how long any extended warrentys they sell should be. So if something has a .5 failure rate after 5 years it`ll probably be profitable to sell a warrenty on that, but if its 10% it could be a loss. Anything they make has to last a year at least due to consumer law so they always do there best to reduce early defects. This means they cant really get away with crappy materials or a rubbish product as they will get murdered by the losses. I guess it also means the age of the product will be increased by good engineering used to save on early breakages. Reliablity is an interesting subject, and any consumer should have a look at it.

As for the cars themselves, its pretty likely they arent built to last, the biggest cause is probably electronics, as there are so many components jammed in there its pretty likely one will fail and cause trouble.

Its a nice thought to think of some of the cowboys we have seen over the last few years trying to keep one of these yokes going after a few years when they cant afford something new. (then again they`d probably just sell it on.)

All in all, very true. However you'd wonder why high end cars used to be so much better built, built to last if you will, and yet now they aren't anywhere near as good. I suppose it could well be down to the computing and electrical side of things.

galwaytt

...well, there is certainly truth in the fact that, in the past, premium cars were premium cars in every respect. Performance, quality, spec etc. etc. The living examples of this are the W126 and W124 series Merc's. They are the cornerstone of the company's quality motto. Never has someone done so much to undermine that than Merc themselves, e.g W211 and similarly aged S-Class (I forget the W number....) Complete and utter nightmares.

Now, all the 'good' cars as we've come to know them, seem to be from, or up to, a certain era.......up to mid '90's. Is that a coincidence ? I think not. Up 'til then, you see, all car manufacturers were concerned with improving the car and the brand, in every incarnation (sic :rolleyes:)...this was because there was a gap to be maintained between expectation and execution. In other words, keep getting better. But, something happened.

I think Kaizen, etc has an awful lot to do with it. Do the required amount, at the required time, for the required result. And the required result ? To improve profitability. To do that means to sell more shiney new ones........

I've heard this from inside the trade in the UK, too. Consider, the 1998-2003 Porsche 911 (996). This was the first Kaizen (thanks to input from Toyota) Porsche 911, and featured the all-new M96 engine. I won't bore you with the details but just Google 'M96 engine failure' or '996 engine failure'. Now I'm not going to take a position on whether they're good or ill, but what I will say is that Porsche for example have made a decision to 'no comment' on it, effectively, and quite possibly for the following reason, as explained to me by a dealer.

The market for new Porsches is no longer enthusiasts, it's simply those who have the wherewithal to buy one, and now that they're as easy to drive/maintain as a Focus, that means all and sundry. It also means that they get serviced..........just as often as a Focus. Which is not have as much, or as often, or with as much TLC, as traditional Porsches. This has an impact on the quality of the cars, after a few years, and not for the better. Porsche has decided there's money in, new ones, and none in old ones. After it goes out of warranty (3 years in the US), there is no potential income stream, or responsibility (warranty), for Porsche AG cars over that age. So why should they make them last 20 years, when after 3 there's no money in it ? So, for example, if you do mind your 996, and it doesn't FUBAR, and you get to 10 years/100k miles, and need an engine rebuild, what can Porsche offer you? Well, frankly, nothing. There are no o/size pistons or rings, or u/size bearing available for the M96 engine at all !! They simply don't do them. They'd rather you take your 'old car' and annoy somebody else about it, tbh, 'cos they just want to make new ones.

Which is all undertandable, but also a tad mercenary. Too mercenary, imho, because the reason they got to where they are today is precisely because of the affinity of people for their older machines. And the longevity of the older machines is a key facet in the cachet of the brand, and the position of the company in the market they're in. It is not because of the reps of the newer cars (although I like them, too). But don't kid yourself - you're not getting the same thing as in previous incarnations.

What old car service they support now is, effectively, for marketing purposes only.

Example: last week, at the 'Ring, the instructor asked the (Porsche)group: 'how many people here drive a 964....?' A couple of hands go up. 'And 993?' A few more go up. '996 ?' I think 1 hand went up. So the instructor then prompts 'so the rest of you must drive 997's then ?? ' Ha ! - how we laughed ! Somewhat puzzled, we had to point out to him that he was going in the wrong direction, age wise - he'd have been better starting at 964 and going.......backwards in modeltime !! You see, we were enthusiasts. We are the type that go 'training' at the 'Ring. Not Focus drivers....;)

I don't doubt for a second but that M-B or BMW are any different.

galwaytt

...as a simple measure, think about this: there was a time when you need tools, e.g. screwdrivers and possibly sockets, to remover a doorcard from a door.

Now you need a spoon - and don't break the plastic buttons whilst you're at it.

If you're car is 'buttons'.......it'll never last as long as 'screws'. And in the interim, at whatever high miles it gets to, the 'buttons' car will rattlle and hum a lot, lot sooner!

JimmyCrackCorn!

Voodoomelon wrote: »

All in all, very true. However you'd wonder why high end cars used to be so much better built, built to last if you will, and yet now they aren't anywhere near as good. I suppose it could well be down to the computing and electrical side of things.

The more complex any system the more likely it is to fail and the more unpredictable the failures become.

Dartz

There's a difference between lean manufacturing, and lean design.

GM is about as far from Lean manufacturing as it can be, but even Cadillac, a supposed premium brand, is so plastikky and cheaply built inside, it's practically a throwaway toy.

Lean manufacturing can if properly implented, improve manufacturing efficiency and quality. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_production_system

That's how to run a factory.

pred racer

Dartz wrote: »

There's a difference between lean manufacturing, and lean design.

GM is about as far from Lean manufacturing as it can be, but even Cadillac, a supposed premium brand, is so plastikky and cheaply built inside, it's practically a throwaway toy.

Lean manufacturing can if properly implented, improve manufacturing efficiency and quality. Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_production_system

That's how to run a factory.

your dead right there. We do alot of Kaizen sh1te in work, its a manufacturing streamlining process, which is not supposed to affect the quality of the end product. I have read the history of the Porche Kaizen (sad I know) And some of the changes were not for the best (from an engineering point of view) Teams of specialist craftsmen no longer build the cars and alot more is outsourced. According to Porche this actuality improves the quality but I have my doubts.

galwaytt

yes, yes, all true, but you're forgetting one thing: lean manufacturing and quality, do not conflict with planned obsolesence.......you can do, both.

All Kaizen does is deliver the goal. If the goal is a 5 yr, or 10 yr car, all you'll get is a lean manufactured, and quality 5/10 yr car.....

pred racer

good point.