Are new cars that much better than the model they replace?

Stallingrad

I think it safe to say by and large yes, but it seems that the improvements in key areas like comfort, handling, refinement, ride, build quality are now very small. Certainly the in-car tech has exploded but arguably little of that actually makes the car any better to drive. But it seems the main improvements these days are really just styling and tech driven.

I was struck when reading a review of the new E-Class, where it refers to the old E-class as being raucous and unrefined. That contradicted what I read of it when launched when it was lauded for its return to Merc values of outstanding build quality and comfort. Was the E60 that much better than the E39? Hindsight would suggest not.

Makes you wonder how impartial journalist are when assessing a new car, obviously its in no ones interest to say that a new car is only somewhat better than its predecessor.

I would be interested to see some car test where they pitch the older and newer models against each other.

Anyway, just throwing this out there.

jimgoose

You'll have to speak up, Newcomen's Nodding-Donkey is spewing steam everywhere again.

Del2005

Stallingrad wrote: »

I think it safe to say by and large yes, but it seems that the improvements in key areas like comfort, handling, refinement, ride, build quality are now very small. Certainly the in-car tech has exploded but arguably little of that actually makes the car any better to drive. But it seems the main improvements these days are really just styling and tech driven.

I was struck when reading a review of the new E-Class, where it refers to the old E-class as being raucous and unrefined. That contradicted what I read of it when launched when it was lauded for its return to Merc values of outstanding build quality and comfort. Was the E60 that much better than the E39? Hindsight would suggest not.

Makes you wonder how impartial journalist are when assessing a new car, obviously its in no ones interest to say that a new car is only somewhat better than its predecessor.

I would be interested to see some car test where they pitch the older and newer models against each other.

Anyway, just throwing this out there.

If your getting an all expenses paid trip to test drive a car launch you're hardly going to rock the boat, as then you won't get the next all expenses paid trip.

ongarite

Maybe in luxury class cars the difference is small generation to generation but small cars like Fiesta, Polo even Corsa have massively improved in all areas each replacement cycle.

Markcheese

Stallingrad wrote:

I was struck when reading a review of the new E-Class, where it refers to the old E-class as being raucous and unrefined. That contradicted what I read of it when launched when it was lauded for its return to Merc values of outstanding build quality and comfort. Was the E60 that much better than the E39? Hindsight would suggest not.

Its usually a gradual thing ,if you went back to the car you were driving 15 / 20 years ago you'd probably be shocked at how crap it is....
That said I wonder about all the electronics and complexity in modern cars,the engineering is mostly great its the electronics are the let down...

coylemj

Del2005 wrote: »

If your getting an all expenses paid trip to test drive a car launch you're hardly going to rock the boat, as then you won't get the next all expenses paid trip.

+1 Never ceases to amaze me how journalists go on about MEPs and their 'junkets' when their colleagues the motoring journalists are the worst offenders. They get flown to exotic locations like Monte Carlo for a couple of nights, the only cars they get to drive are the top of the range models stuffed with options that none of us will buy and then they're supposed to write an impartial review about the basic model which will account for 80-90% of that model sales in Ireland because of the high VRT.

As Del2005 says above, all with an eye on the next junket so a lot of the BS they include in their 'review' is straight out of the product launch brochure they get. All a bit of a joke really except that the cost of those junkets ends up in the forecourt price that we pay.

ABC101

Ultimately it's all part of the "scam" to get money out of people's wallets / purses to keep the capitalist / consumerist machine churning over.

40 years ago... cars rusted like hell....... but people kept their cars going for 15 or 17 years, sometimes more. These days cars paint technology / rust protection is much improved with rust most unlikely to occur inside the first 10 years even longer in some cases.... yet punters are encouraged to replace their car every 3 years!!

But there has been big improvements in safety features over the last 30 years, ABS, Traction control, ESP, multiple airbags etc etc... and now more safety features i.e. parking sensors, lane assistance, auto braking, identification of pedestrians and so on.

I think for the future.... cars will become more complex with software, be able to drive themselves, communicate with other cars (like changing lanes etc) perhaps even communicate with the human occupants, even eavesdrop on private conversations. So if your son or daughter borrows your car... you will be able to find out what they were up to in the back seat!!

Hopefully that will be the end of penalty points for drivers?

dudara

I moved from a 2000 318 petrol to a 2013 320d, and in some ways, I much preferred my older car. It had a really solid build quality, which isn't as present in the newer car (probably due to use of lighter materials). All the new computer features are wonderful, but they're somewhat distracting also.

The new car is obviously more powerful, incredibly comfortable and it looks great, but I have a sensation of being more removed from driving. I just don't feel the road in the same way.

Henry Ford III

I like junkets.

TrailerBob

I reckon cars peaked around 2004 as they had all the best of modern techw, without being over reliant on computers, and the best of build quality from the late 90's jump that many manufacturers took.

Except Renault... Theyre only catching up now.

ianobrien

Some of the advances in car design are ruining the driving experience. Modern cars generally give zero feedback to the driver as to what the car is doing through the controls. This is most noticeable in steering feedback. I've a 39 year old Escort at home (which is based on 50 hear old design technology) and the feedback through the steering, pedals, gear lever and seat are fab compered to its modern replacement, the Focus. (The Escort is standard before anybody starts shouting). It's a beautiful thing to drive on a twisty road (at sane speeds) due to the feedback.

There is a large "BUT" though. Grip, brakes, wind noise & reliability are far superior for the Focus. Ride I reckon is better in the Escort.

JoeA3

As someone else mentioned above, cars have moved on a lot more than you'd realise. Sit into a MK1 Ford Focus for example and then sit into a new Focus / Golf and it's fair to say the older car will seem very very old indeed. Everything from tech, driving position, seating comfort, interior materials, fit and finish, ergonomics, etc has moved on light years and that's before you even drive it.

I had 2 MK1 Focus's in the early '00's... I sat into one recently and my god it felt old. Same with most cars of that era now IMO.

Sh1tbag OToole

Markcheese wrote: »

Its usually a gradual thing ,if you went back to the car you were driving 15 / 20 years ago you'd probably be shocked at how crap it is....
That said I wonder about all the electronics and complexity in modern cars,the engineering is mostly great its the electronics are the let down...

Strangely, I don't find older cars crap to drive. I have no appreciation for gadgets and gimmicks they put into cars now. Driverless cars though are a whole new level of boring.

They need to put so much extra hp into a modern car to make up for the dullness, isolation and lack of feedback thats built into these cars.

166man

The Insignia was a massive step up from the Old Vectra but then again that car so below par it was only really catching up to the competition.

Hyundai and Kia while I'm not a fan of their cars have done serious work in improving the new models of their cars over the old ones. Remember the Hyundai Sonata anybody and compare it to the i40...?

irish bloke

166man wrote: »

The Insignia was a massive step up from the Old Vectra but then again that car so below par it was only really catching up to the competition.

Hyundai and Kia while I'm not a fan of their cars have done serious work in improving the new models of their cars over the old ones. Remember the Hyundai Sonata anybody and compare it to the i40...?

Agree,...the Insignia does seem a decent car, but the Vectra in fairness was a pile of junk in comparison to other cars in it class

screamer

Don't think so I find a lot of newer cars are plasticy and with the underpowered engines in what used to be 2 litre diesels and big bodies to pull around they are slow boring boats to drive. course not applicable to the top segments but to ordinary cars. There's not a car in the ordinary car space that id actually buy.

carsfan2

I would much rather be involved in an accident in a new car than the equivalent model of 10/15 years ago.
Safety standards have massively improved at all levels.

Indricotherium

Things move from extra to standard the newer the car.

Example, I drove an 01 civic the other day and it had window winders, I don't think there are many cars on the market at the moment where electric front windows are an option?

irish bloke

Im about 8 weeks now looking to move on my 02 Audi A4 1.8T that I have looked after well over the years. - It gets oil & filter every 6k, have it almost 12 years and has 121k on the clock.
It has 6 airbags and an NCAP safety rating of 4 stars for an adult occupant which is the same as the A4 (B7 model) which runs up to 2008. - This is more than acceptable by today’s standards…

Im driving to work this morning with the radio off and not a squeak, rattle or knock can I hear from the car. It has really no mechanical/electrical issues whatsoever.
As good as nick as it’s in, I would probably get 2k for it at a push.

I have looked at everything from 730D’s to Kia’s in the last 8 weeks and I really haven’t seen that much advancement over the last 14 year of motor development outside of styling.
If I’m to be honest I just want something with more power and more toys.- Almost all the toys available now could also be got in 2002. - I had a MFSW on a 1994 Peugeot 306 D-Turbo back in the day.

Finding it hard to justify giving up a perfectly good car for a prettier lass, but as far as “are new cars that much better than the model they replace?”, I don’t think so

irish bloke

carsfan2 wrote: »

I would much rather be involved in an accident in a new car than the equivalent model of 10/15 years ago.
Safety standards have massively improved at all levels.

Are you sure about that?

Skylinehead

Indricotherium wrote: »

Things move from extra to standard the newer the car.

Example, I drove an 01 civic the other day and it had window winders, I don't think there are many cars on the market at the moment where electric front windows are an option?

I'd say the difference between the Mk7 and Mk8 Civics is one of the bigger ones around, at least in terms of features/styling.

fancy pigeon

Peugeot 406: absolute champion of a car
Peugeot 407: what the bloody hell happened?!

jimgoose

fancy pigeon wrote: »

Peugeot 406: absolute champion of a car
Peugeot 407: what the bloody hell happened?!

What happened? PSA adopted their so far enormously successful business model consisting of selling terrible cars to blithering idiots at the right price. Haven't you heard, it's the only game in town! :pac:

Stallingrad

I have a B7 Passat, does the new one move the game on much, certainly not enough to warrant changing.

Ditto:
Old Astra v current Astra
Old Mondeo v current Mondeo
Old Corrolla v current Corrolla
Old Kuga c current Kuga
etc.

There are exceptions of course, Volvo offer big improvements, but their model cycle is long and their base was quite low.

Indricotherium

Stallingrad wrote: »

I have a B7 Passat, does the new one move the game on much, certainly not enough to warrant changing.

Ditto:
Old Astra v current Astra
Old Mondeo v current Mondeo
Old Corrolla v current Corrolla
Old Kuga c current Kuga
etc.

There are exceptions of course, Volvo offer big improvements, but their model cycle is long and their base was quite low.

The new corolla is available in hybrid that's a drastic change.

Stallingrad

Indricotherium wrote: »

The new corolla is available in hybrid that's a drastic change.

Not here, not yet.

But sure new drivetrains offer something new, but a boggo petrol or diesel Corrolla being much better than what come before?

irish bloke

OSI wrote: »

There's no debate about it. The pure simple figures and facts prove cars today are safer than they've ever been.

It is very much debatable and it depends very much from one car to another.
An older car can have a much higher rating then a newer car.

For example:

My 14 year old Audi has an adult occupant NCAP rating of 4 stars and a pedestrian rating of 1 star, some 2002 cars fair better- As you may or may not be aware, the child occupancy testing did not come into effect until circa 2005. This however does not mean a pre-2005 car is child unsafe, it just means it wasn’t tested. – same goes for safety assist testing cirra 2009, of which my car has ABS, ESP etc..

A 2016 Suzuki Baleno has an overall rating of 3 stars, with adult occupant NCAP rating the same as the 14 year old Audi- this was the first car I looked at on their site, and there are probably worse.

The facts are that modern cars are more strenuously tested then older cars, not that they are safer as the data is just not available.

Stallingrad

The use of smart phones by drivers now outweighs any safety strides made by manufactures. The biggest improvement to road safety would be to make it impossible to use them while in a moving vehicle. Not going to happen. Anyway, that is another discussion.

"Texting while driving caused 1.3 million crashes in a year.

Research recently commissioned by AT&T found that 70% of smartphone users are on their phones while driving. The study, conducted by Braun Research, polled 2,067 U.S. residents ages 16-65 who use their smartphone and drive once or more per day.

In its own research, the NSC found that cell phones are a factor in 27% of all car crashes — a stat that's been growing for the third year in a row."

colm_mcm

The main issue in the states is that in about 28 states it's not illegal to use a mobile while driving, and in other states, it's only illegal if you're under 18, a learner or a professional driver.

GustavoFring

irish bloke wrote: »

It is very much debatable and it depends very much from one car to another.
An older car can have a much higher rating then a newer car.

For example:

My 14 year old Audi has an adult occupant NCAP rating of 4 stars and a pedestrian rating of 1 star, some 2002 cars fair better- As you may or may not be aware, the child occupancy testing did not come into effect until circa 2005. This however does not mean a pre-2005 car is child unsafe, it just means it wasn’t tested. – same goes for safety assist testing cirra 2009, of which my car has ABS, ESP etc..

A 2016 Suzuki Baleno has an overall rating of 3 stars, with adult occupant NCAP rating the same as the 14 year old Audi- this was the first car I looked at on their site, and there are probably worse.

The facts are that modern cars are more strenuously tested then older cars, not that they are safer as the data is just not available.

A 4-star rating from 2002 isn't equivalent to a 4-star rating in 2016. Testing criteria has changed with the times and in reality if the 2002 car was tested against the current standard it would have a lower rating.

A direct quote from the Audi A4 page:

ABOUT PRE-2009 RATING

This vehicle was published before Euro NCAP’s current overall star rating scheme, launched in 2009, and is included here for archival only. The results published prior to 2009 can’t be compared to results released under the overall rating scheme.

http://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest-safety-ratings/?selectedMake=7277&selectedMakeName=Audi&selectedModel=7323&selectedModelName=A4&nodeId=1455&allProtocols=true&includeFullSafetyPackage=true&includeStandardSafetyPackage=true&selectedProtocols=24370,1472,5910,5931,-1,14999&selectedClasses=1202,1199,1201,1196,1205,1203,1198,1179,1197,1204,1180&allClasses=true#&allDriverAssistanceTechnologies=false&selectedDriverAssistanceTechnologies=

The points required to gain the stars now are tougher to come by - it doesn't mean they are safe just that what was considered a 4-star rating then would be considered lower now.

irish bloke

OSI wrote: »

So you're using ratings from different tests to compare 2 cars in different classes to claim that cars are no safer now than previously? Even a casual glance at road deaths per capita show a downward trend as cars become ever safer.

Im not saying cars in general are not safer now then in the past, what I am saying is it depends on the car and not all cars are equal.

Cars were not tested in the past as they are now, therefore the facts and figures you alluded to are not there.

There is no direct relationship between roads deaths per captia and perceived increased car safety. there are many different factors, speed vans/NCT/better roads being the obvious ones.