Does anyone make solid cars anymore?

tdiman

Had a very interesting conversation with a group of mechanics lately. Some from garages working with brands, some independents working and servicing all brands. Each agreed to some degree that there is no 'good solid' cars anymore. Brands such as VW and Toyota who in the past were reliable have really taken a nose dive. Both are manufactured in plants where costs cutting (which extends to the parts they use) and so the quality is dropping.

Had some conversations with a few drivers of different cars too - eg. Merc. One guy told me it was the worst investment he has ever made. He's been stranded on the m50 several times with electrical failure, mechanical failure, etc. - wipersstooped working ESP stopped working. He was driving a fairly high end model too....

Just got me to thinking if there really is a solid car anymore. I understand sometimes you can get a 'bad' example which is very troublesome and not typical of that brand or model, but is there anything out there that someone would recommend? Interested to hear your thoughts.

New Renaults, bulletproof apparently.

GTE

My Mams Corolla is the last and newest reliable car in the house. Its a 04 or 05 and there are 2 other 04's in the family. Now before someone asks its not in the batch of cars that had dodgy accelerators. Nothing has ever gone wrong with the Toyota.

The merc is good and bad. The BMW is fairly solid but has a few problems.
So I think around that time when you deal with cars that were probably mainly designed in or around 1999 and 2000 are the last of the solid cars. Having said that all the serious bits of my Golf (2000) work great and no bother on them but some little silly bits like sensors and boot latches and stupid small things can break so it could be a tipping point.

Cookie_Monster

Cars have way way more electric these days so there is more to go wrong there for a start.

They are also designed to a much shorter shelf life so they will be replaced more often. In built obsolescence, most product built these days are engineered to last only a few years and be replaced rather than repaired.

Add to that cheap low quality Chinese manufactured parts and it all ads up to a much less solid piece of kit overall. Not just related to cars, but most gadgets these days :mad:

Subliminal Stimulus

Land Rover Defender, although you sort of need a good excuse to buy one!

samsemtex

Subliminal Stimulus wrote: »

Land Rover Defender, although you sort of need a good excuse to buy one!

Land rover? Bulletproof?

That is an oxymoron.

Mr. Presentable

Subliminal Stimulus wrote: »

Land Rover Defender, although you sort of need a good excuse to buy one!

Is lobotomised a good enough excuse?

langdang

I still reckon a Mazda 1.8/2.0 petrol with regular oil services with proper oil will go for years/miles with just the usual consumables.

Anan1

I'm struggling to remember anyone in my family having an unreliable car in the last twenty years, and that includes a FIAT Tipo and an Alfa 156 both run to over 130k miles. Mind you, we maintain them properly.

As an aside, I wouldn't pay much heed to the opinions of the average mechanic when buying a car.:)

Stevie Dakota

I blame the internet, I suspect cars where never bombprooof, we just thought they were. Now we bleat on endlessly about every little thing and everyone has to hear about it. Improve reliability, switch of you PC.

jimmycrackcorm

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

I blame the internet, I suspect cars where never bombprooof, we just thought they were. Now we bleat on endlessly about every little thing and everyone has to hear about it. Improve reliability, switch of you PC.

For every 20 people with a reliable model of a particular car you end up hearing about one with problems particularly on the internet and suddenly that model is completely unreliable

Stevie Dakota

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

I blame the internet, I suspect cars where never bombprooof, we just thought they were. Now we bleat on endlessly about every little thing and everyone has to hear about it. Improve reliability, switch of you PC.

I dunno. The old 520 I bought a few months back has 160000 miles on it and is amazingly fresh. I had a 1993 Prelude this time last year that was less than cherished by previous owners but it was still incredibly impressive for a 16 year old car. This morning I saw a 2008 Mondeo being dragged onto a tow truck, wasn't due to tyres or running out of fuel, must have broken down.

Most modern diesels with dmfs have the potential to ruin a families budget if things are getting a bit tight. Folks who bought a new Carina E back in 1993 if they still have it can probably say it's never broken down or stranded them if they looked after it.

Edit: I'd class my 1995 Celica and 1999 rover 600 both as solid & bulletproof too.

kyote00

I think this is not a very compelling argument. Solid compared to what and when ? There is a "rose tinted" glasses syndrome going on here....

In the 70's & 80's cars rusted - my street used to be like a scrappers yard with everyone trying to get the machines going on cold/damp morning....anyone remember points failures, carb tuning, vacuum leaks - drying out the plugs in the oven ?
The austin 1100, fiat 12*, ford cortina mk1 (1200 especially) alfasud, nissan bluebird....all ****ing herendous

There probably was a sweet spot in the late 80s and early 90s where engine technology was stable and there were very few electrical/electronic systems on the car...

Today's cars are safer, stronger, more comfortable, more economical. The question is do you really need all those other electrical toys - e.g. heated seats, rear parking camera, wipers that sense rain, even electric windows ....

tdiman wrote: »

Had a very interesting conversation with a group of mechanics lately. Some from garages working with brands, some independents working and servicing all brands. Each agreed to some degree that there is no 'good solid' cars anymore. Brands such as VW and Toyota who in the past were reliable have really taken a nose dive. Both are manufactured in plants where costs cutting (which extends to the parts they use) and so the quality is dropping.

Had some conversations with a few drivers of different cars too - eg. Merc. One guy told me it was the worst investment he has ever made. He's been stranded on the m50 several times with electrical failure, mechanical failure, etc. - wipersstooped working ESP stopped working. He was driving a fairly high end model too....

Just got me to thinking if there really is a solid car anymore. I understand sometimes you can get a 'bad' example which is very troublesome and not typical of that brand or model, but is there anything out there that someone would recommend? Interested to hear your thoughts.

ICE HOUSE

Get an old volvo 940 or s70 bulletproof
Volvo for life !!!!:)

BrianD3

Rose tinted glasses. People have been saying "they don't make them like they used to" for decades. Car buyers, mechanics and enthusiasts are generally quite conservative and will often lash out at anything perceived to be new or different.

It is true that modern cars are more complex and can be very expensive when they go wrong, also many in the motor trade seem to be incompetent at fixing problems with the new technology.

Then again, modern cars have longer service intervals, much better rust protection, much stronger bodies (for safety) longer warranties. In my experience, many wear and tear parts like the basic mechanical parts of engines and gearboxes, clutches, batteries, exhausts last last longer than they have before.

So I would disagree with the idea that nobody makes "solid" cars anymore. I also agree with the posts about bad news being exaggerated on internet forums. I often read on this forum about how terrible Mercedes reliability became once Chrysler got involved - yet every year the ADAC breakdown statistics show Chrysler era Mercedes to be very reliable. I also don't understand the fascination with older designs like the Mercedes W124 and comments about how its "bombproof" and "like a tank" Some serious rose tinted views of that car.

BrianD3

BrianD3 wrote: »

I also don't understand the fascination with older designs like the Mercedes W124 and comments about how its "bombproof" and "like a tank" Some serious rose tinted views of that car.

I'd have to agree, I didn't include that in my list of previous cars that I reckoned were bulletproof, not a patch on the e34 Bimmer.

JHMEG

VW were reliable? That's news to me.

mickdw

If I was going on a journey where life or death depended on the car not breaking down, I would take my old 92 audi 80 instead of my current 08 audi. Far less chance of it shutting down for some silly reason.
The interior materials used in new audis compared to old are miles apart. While the newer ones look pretty good still. they are just that bit flimsy.

Max_Damage

BrianD3 wrote: »

I also don't understand the fascination with older designs like the Mercedes W124 and comments about how its "bombproof" and "like a tank" Some serious rose tinted views of that car.

W123's were better.

Mango Joe

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

I blame the internet, I suspect cars where never bombprooof, we just thought they were. Now we bleat on endlessly about every little thing and everyone has to hear about it. Improve reliability, switch of you PC.

There isn't a Bank of Servers anywhere big enough to host the Renault DIY/Repairs Forum though

ToxicPaddy

A Russian company called Dartz do..

http://www.automotto.org/entry/dartz-suv-the-world-s-most-expensive-suv/

Though you pay for the privilege of having it..

Back on topic..

I think a lot of the newer cars will never be as solid as the older generation cars, emissions controls, was too much dependence on electronics, management systems etc.. Yes the body parts and basics are better built as in far better more modern materials, but its the electronics that runs them that wear out, broken switches, blown fuses, worn wiring etc.. the margins on cars are much much smaller these days so obviously car manufacturers are not spending top dollar on every component unless its a high end item..

you're better off buying an old luxobarge that once maintained will run forever, no bells n whistles.. just the basics..

Either that or buy a bicycle.. :P

Anan1

BrianD3 wrote: »

I also don't understand the fascination with older designs like the Mercedes W124 and comments about how its "bombproof" and "like a tank" Some serious rose tinted views of that car.

Max_Damage wrote: »

W123's were better.

I seem to remember German taxi drivers protesting about the unreliability of the W124 compared to the W123 when the new car was first launched.

shannonpowerlab

BrianD3 wrote: »

I also don't understand the fascination with older designs like the Mercedes W124 and comments about how its "bombproof" and "like a tank" Some serious rose tinted views of that car.

Well, I own a W123 and W202 and used to own a Primera...I spend a lot of weekends under them. There is a remarkable difference in body panel thickness and construction methods.

Older design incorporated greater safety factor as they structrual stresses were calculated semi-manually.

I do not know about bomb proof and bullet proof stuff but they were built with a plenty of safety factor built into it. You'll know when you take it apart...

W124 aren't too bad either as I think if I am cottect the chassis is 2 bulk head design instead of 1 like newer design with rear folding seats. Only down side is that there is no access to the boot from the cabin rear seat.

langdang

kyote00 wrote: »

I think this is not a very compelling argument. Solid compared to what and when ? There is a "rose tinted" glasses syndrome going on here....

In the 70's & 80's cars rusted - my street used to be like a scrappers yard with everyone trying to get the machines going on cold/damp morning....anyone remember points failures, carb tuning, vacuum leaks - drying out the plugs in the oven ?
The austin 1100, fiat 12*, ford cortina mk1 (1200 especially) alfasud, nissan bluebird....all ****ing herendous

There probably was a sweet spot in the late 80s and early 90s where engine technology was stable and there were very few electrical/electronic systems on the car...

Today's cars are safer, stronger, more comfortable, more economical. The question is do you really need all those other electrical toys - e.g. heated seats, rear parking camera, wipers that sense rain, even electric windows ....

I'd consider mid to late 90's jap as being the benchmark for solid reliability (obviously a lot of them were biscuit tins in terms of impact protection).
As you say engine technology etc had been incrementally improved and quality control was an out and out priority. Engines were basic and were able to survive the typical servicing (or lack of) inflicted on them by the average joe.
Now, with engineers being pushed to produce more power and better fuel efficiency they have had to lose some long term reliability/durability.
You're right about the gadgets - Even a mechanically perfect car will end up as premature crusher fodder if there's too many gadgets to give trouble.

I'd say the world would be a much "greener" place if they had frozen car development at mid-to-late 90's jap and we just drove the things until they died, rather than highly efficient gadget laden disposable cars.

shannonpowerlab

langdang wrote: »

I'd consider mid to late 90's jap as being the benchmark for solid reliability (obviously a lot of them were biscuit tins in terms of impact protection).

Now, with engineers being pushed to produce more power and better fuel efficiency they have had to lose some long term reliability/durability.
You're right about the gadgets - Even a mechanically perfect car will end up as premature crusher fodder if there's too many gadgets to give trouble.
QUOTE]


Yes totally agree. talk about the latest Lexsus recall:D

My uncle works in Toyota HQ. He told me a while back they now hire contract R&D engineers so that they can adjust head count at a moments notice to suit budget...

Stevie Dakota

Ahh E34 BMW. It also was not without it's faults -

Usual BMW cooling, T-stats, water pumps, viscous couplings, radiator necks
Window motors
Dodgy pixels

But what a car, brilliantly engineered, would have one again in the morning.

bmw535d

Toyota hilux, break one of those and you shouldn't be allowed near an automobile

langdang

bmw535d wrote: »

Toyota hilux, break one of those and you shouldn't be allowed near an automobile

Maybe this is the real reason the yanks hate toyota - they'd own the middle east and Afghanistan by now if it wasn't for the hilux...

daveharnett

In fairness, the manufacturers have a tough time of it.
We expect cars that never break down, get 60MPG, carry five people and their golf clubs, weigh the same as a bag of sugar, emit nothing but kittens, run on distilled weeds, operate the wipers and lights for us (and the accelerator/brake on motorways), change gears in a few milliseconds, go 20,000 miles between services, survive 100kph head-on collisions, defy the laws of physics under cornering/braking, and produce 150bhp/L.

Oh, and we want them for about €20,000 after the government takes a massive slice of tax.

I'll forgive them if closing the door doesn't 'clunk' as nicely as I'd like.

Mini Driver

Have an 04 Focus that has never needed anything done and not so much as a flat bettery. I dont even get it serviced that often ....now that I have said that I will break down on the M50 tonight on the way home

ShadowHearth

Simple reason, why cars are not so reliable as before: its not profitable.

Making a solid car which wount see any trouble is usless in manufacturers eyes.

You sell car for 20k eu, then you have it in your dealership fixing it for 5 years which brings anather 10k, after that owner is forced to buy a new one again. As this one is barelly alive + ??? = profit

Alot of gadgets and electronis dont help aswell. I would prefer an up to 00" car which is clean then anything half newish.

Stevie Dakota

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

Ahh E34 BMW. ......................
But what a car, brilliantly engineered, would have one again in the morning.

You can have mine if you want
Not in the morning though, few weeks
Don't think you'd give me what I would like though (u seem a a shrewd sort :cool: )

seamus

I think it's a rose-tinting fallacy that cars are any less solid now than they were before. In fact, I would say they're much more resistant to failing now, it's just that servicing the bloody things will cost you two arms and three legs, and there's not even anything wrong with them.

Cars broke down all the time when I was a child. It seemed like every other week you'd hear someone saying, "My car broke down". I've only had one breakdown in ten years of driving, in 3 different cars. I can't even remember the last time that I heard someone talk about their car spontaneously breaking, beyond normal wear and tear.

langdang

daveharnett wrote: »

In fairness, the manufacturers have a tough time of it.
We expect cars that never break down, get 60MPG, carry five people and their golf clubs, weigh the same as a bag of sugar, emit nothing but kittens, run on distilled weeds, operate the wipers and lights for us (and the accelerator/brake on motorways), change gears in a few milliseconds, go 20,000 miles between services, survive 100kph head-on collisions, defy the laws of physics under cornering/braking, and produce 150bhp/L.

Oh, and we want them for about €20,000 after the government takes a massive slice of tax.

I'll forgive them if closing the door doesn't 'clunk' as nicely as I'd like.

You're 100% right on what Joe public wants - but considering the OP mentioned Toyota as an example of a good solid car I presume he meant solid reliability not nice thunking doors and "tank" construction.

shannonpowerlab

seamus wrote: »

Cars broke down all the time when I was a child. It seemed like every other week you'd hear someone saying, "My car broke down". I've only had one breakdown in ten years of driving, in 3 different cars. I can't even remember the last time that I heard someone talk about their car spontaneously breaking, beyond normal wear and tear.

I guess it is all a relativity...back then car/machines in general were much less reliable than now...

Now the general standard has increased but in our minds 30 years ago a car that started every morning regardless of outside temperature was totally amazing even though it is totally normall nowadays...I suppose we just get used to things...but the memory of the "great car" is still there...

seamus

seamus wrote: »

I think it's a rose-tinting fallacy that cars are any less solid now than they were before.

I dunno, had a 2005 Mondeo that broke down twice ('twas 05/06 I had it). I ten years of driving ole yokes I have only had two other breakdowns, clutch and fuel pump. Clutch was my fault (I was 18 ). I've had a flat battery or two and ran out of petrol/diesel twice but that's not the cars fault really.

shannonpowerlab

daveharnett wrote: »

In fairness, the manufacturers have a tough time of it.
We expect cars that never break down, get 60MPG, carry five people and their golf clubs, weigh the same as a bag of sugar, emit nothing but kittens, run on distilled weeds, operate the wipers and lights for us (and the accelerator/brake on motorways), change gears in a few milliseconds, go 20,000 miles between services, survive 100kph head-on collisions, defy the laws of physics under cornering/braking, and produce 150bhp/L.

Oh, and we want them for about €20,000 after the government takes a massive slice of tax.

I'll forgive them if closing the door doesn't 'clunk' as nicely as I'd like.

Very true!!

galwaytt

kyote00 wrote: »

I think this is not a very compelling argument. Solid compared to what and when ? There is a "rose tinted" glasses syndrome going on here....

In the 70's & 80's cars rusted - my street used to be like a scrappers yard with everyone trying to get the machines going on cold/damp morning....anyone remember points failures, carb tuning, vacuum leaks - drying out the plugs in the oven ?
The austin 1100, fiat 12*, ford cortina mk1 (1200 especially) alfasud, nissan bluebird....all ****ing herendous

There probably was a sweet spot in the late 80s and early 90s where engine technology was stable and there were very few electrical/electronic systems on the car...

Today's cars are safer, stronger, more comfortable, more economical. The question is do you really need all those other electrical toys - e.g. heated seats, rear parking camera, wipers that sense rain, even electric windows ....

I agree, up to a point, even my Dad's old Audi 100LS's and 80LS's seemed to constantly need something...........and the Audi's up to 78 rusted as well as any Mirafiori

However, it's not heated seats and camera's that are causing cars to break down, there seems to be, esp with diesels, just that bit too much of a knife-edge, technology-wise, for them to ever reach old age. Which some people think is 5yrs :rolleyes:

You're right about that 'technology plateau' though, it took ages to get to it, and we didn't stay there long. Early '90s cars seem to 'have it', in that regard. No resting on our laurels, eh ? Even Nissan Laurels......:p

Tea 1000

The 97-02 Honda Accord and the Honda S2000 seem to be the only two cars that have no known faults or anything that typically goes wrong with them.

daveharnett

galwaytt wrote: »

You're right about that 'technology plateau' though, it took ages to get to it, and we didn't stay there long. Early '90s cars seem to 'have it', in that regard. No resting on our laurels, eh ? Even Nissan Laurels......:p

Heard in a lecture a while back that software now accounts for up to 40% of the cost of developing a new car. It must me a nightmare to integrate hardware and software from dozens of suppliers into something as complex and safety critical as a car. Then they have to test. Can you imagine the number of test scenarios you would need to pass an ABS/TC/ESP controller as fit for purpose?

CAN was a big step forward for standardization in this area, but lots more is needed if car electronics are to become more reliable without bankrupting the manufacturers.

langdang

daveharnett wrote: »

lots more is needed if car electronics are to become more reliable without bankrupting the manufacturers.

or the suppliers! The requirements for supplying electronics into automotive is very very strict. The guys supplying the modules to the big manufacturers want their components suppliers to have less than one part in a million failing - that's on intelligent components - microcontrollers/sensors. If something new does fail in the field the boys are on it like CSI to track down who's fault it was and why...

Sleepy

What I don't understand is why there's no-one producing a purely mechanical, maintain it with a set of spanners and a screwdriver car. Surely, when the mechanical aspects of mechanical engineering have advanced so much in terms of performance and reliability and when the electronics are what let the cars down most often it makes sense to reduce the electronics to the radio...

Imagine the quality and affordability of the car one could produce with this design brief?

mickdw

Sleepy wrote: »

What I don't understand is why there's no-one producing a purely mechanical, maintain it with a set of spanners and a screwdriver car. Surely, when the mechanical aspects of mechanical engineering have advanced so much in terms of performance and reliability and when the electronics are what let the cars down most often it makes sense to reduce the electronics to the radio...

Imagine the quality and affordability of the car one could produce with this design brief?

Something like a defender is about as close to that as is available now.
Take for example something like an old honda 50 bike. Even those changed to an electric unit for ignition around 1980. This made the bike more reliable, easier to start, more powerful & more fuel efficient. The flip side is that it would be marginally more confusing for the diyer to diagnose & possibly more expensive to replace the unit when it does go wrong. I guess that explains in simple terms the need for more electronics in cars.
I think what has happened though is that the manufacturers are using the additional electronics for profit, charging mad prices for replacement units/coding etc.

seamus

Sleepy wrote: »

What I don't understand is why there's no-one producing a purely mechanical, maintain it with a set of spanners and a screwdriver car. Surely, when the mechanical aspects of mechanical engineering have advanced so much in terms of performance and reliability and when the electronics are what let the cars down most often it makes sense to reduce the electronics to the radio...

There is something of a limit that you reach with pure mechanics in how much performance you can squeeze out of something. While purists might like the idea of a solid nuts-n-bolts kind of car, your average car owner wants a black box which drives them down in the road in the most comfortable and convenient manner possible.
Electronics in cars perform so many functions these days - traction control, ABS, etc etc, that if you were to remove them, you would notice.

The limits of mechanical engineering are most evident in aerospace. All of the most advanced fighter jets cannot be flown without their onboard computer. The ability of the thing to stay in the air relies on the onboard electronics to perform hundreds/thousands of adjustments in-flight to keep it aloft and give the feel of normal flight to the operator. If the electronics were to fail, the pure mechanics of the vehicle would cause it to drop like a stone from the sky.

While it may be theoretically possible to create a purely mechanical machine with similar capabilities using very intricate design and engineering, the cost would be astronomical when compared to just banging some circuit boards in there.

In addition, I imagine any new vehicle built without electronics would find it next to impossible to pass modern safety standards, such is our reliance on systems which can react within milliseconds.

mcwhirter

RoverJames wrote: »

New Renaults, bulletproof apparently.

They need to be, when they have broken down for the 5th day running:D

GreeBo

I think the structure and "big" pieces of cars are better now, but as above, there are way more small bits in there and this is where the manufacturers look to save cash by getting them made cheaply.

My parents have a Ford fridge at home that is 36 years old and never had a days problem in its entire life, running 24 hours a day.

Now thats reliability you just dont see any more.

zilog_jones

Sleepy wrote: »

What I don't understand is why there's no-one producing a purely mechanical, maintain it with a set of spanners and a screwdriver car. Surely, when the mechanical aspects of mechanical engineering have advanced so much in terms of performance and reliability and when the electronics are what let the cars down most often it makes sense to reduce the electronics to the radio...

Imagine the quality and affordability of the car one could produce with this design brief?

You'll need a cat, MAF sensor, lamba sensor, etc., and therefore some form of ECU for emissions control to pass today's emissions regulations. Airbags and ABS are probably a minimum requirement in some markets (not sure about here).

I doubt you'll get a carburettor to meet modern emissions either, so you'll probably need electronic fuel injection too. And would you really want to go back to a distributor for ignition? They let you down even in a Honda...

Saab Ed

langdang wrote: »

I'd consider mid to late 90's jap as being the benchmark for solid reliability .

Sorry but I cant agree 100% with that. I sold that stuff and I tell you , you' be very supprised what went wrong with cars of that generation. While I'd be happy to put a Corolla and any Mazda on that list , I cant really think of any other jappo car of the time that could go there too though.

I'd say the Jap stuff from a decade earlier would be a benchmark but the 90's stuff piggy backed on it. Mid 80' Mitsubishis were really bombproof, a decade later and they were spewing out gearboxes everywhere. Nissans of the mid 80' were as good as Toyotas but would anybody want to rank 1993 Spanish built Sunny along side a Corolla! Dont think so.

unkel

Sleepy wrote: »

What I don't understand is why there's no-one producing a purely mechanical, maintain it with a set of spanners and a screwdriver car.

Simple answer. It would be illegal. All cars sold in the EU now must have ABS, which is a very complicated system. Another one is ESP, mandatory from next year.

daveharnett

unkel wrote: »

Simple answer. It would be illegal. All cars sold in the EU now must have ABS, which is a very complicated system. Another one is ESP, mandatory from next year.

I presume there are still exemptions for limited-run and kit cars? I reckon any 'electronics-free' car would sell in small enough numbers to avoid the 'normal' regs, since only nutters would actually buy one. For a start, emissions-based tax would be monstrous on a new carburetted car.

It also begs the question, are there still engineers in the business with the know-how to design and build a high-performance car engine without electronics?