|
Pr0kjayhawk posted:I guess we're basically giving up on anyone ever working on their own car again. Making cars that people are afraid to own second hand can't be good for depreciation. I was going to guess that it could affect sales but let's be honest, people that buy $100k+ cars don't give a poo poo about its worth out of warranty. Manufacturers have almost never wanted you to work on your own car. Maybe some niche brand or utility vehicles back in the sixties, but there's too much money to be made milking people for $100/hr labor them selling them a new car after 3 years.
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 09:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 04:26 |
|
|
Pr0kjayhawk posted:I guess we're basically giving up on anyone ever working on their own car again. Making cars that people are afraid to own second hand can't be good for depreciation. I was going to guess that it could affect sales but let's be honest, people that buy $100k+ cars don't give a poo poo about its worth out of warranty. I get their strategy, though: what do people do for the hour or two while they're waiting for their car to be serviced? They look at new Porsches!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 11:21
|
|
|
Bobby_Wokkerfella posted:Haha, Imagine telling that to the guys building them in the 60's Imagine telling dudes in the 60s that your average random-rear end Korean sedan would have over 100 hp from a tiny-rear end 4 pot motor, drat near live-on-stage sound, wouldn't need major servicing for like six years, and you could get into an accident in it that would kill 99% of drivers at the time and walk away whistling. You'd get your rear end kicked for lying. (Or hell, tell someone in the 90s that they could pull over 500 horse out of a flat six.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 11:49
|
|
|
grover posted:What really pisses me off is the non-user-resettable service light that you HAVE to either go back to the Porsche dealer to turn off or buy a $300 specialized tool that you can't even borrow from a friend because it's restricted to 3 VINs unless you cough up another $450. Real dick move by Porsche right there. Ha, I love that. I thought the service countdown in my car was the same way. Nope, you can just hold down the odometer reset button for 10 seconds and the ECU cache is flushed, resetting the counter. It's even in the manual. I'm sure there's a similar undocumented trick for the 991, even if Porsche doesn't want to admit it. Hell, there may even be a reset button somewhere on the actual ECU. Stranger, more undocumented things have happened before. KozmoNaut fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Sep 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 13:29
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:The BMW X6 is only for people that wanted a really, really expensive Nissan Murano with better looking headlight/tailights and more technogizmos. M badge on the dead pedal 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Meant to post this in the bmw thread, sorry
sellouts fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Sep 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
D C posted:
Not that kind of mesh. I'm talking those pellicle seats made famous on the Aeron chair.  As in an open mesh with no foam padding. Just mesh and a framework to support it. I'm sure it's because the only way to do it while meeting crash and longevity standards is to basically make them out of unobtainium, and nobody wants to pay 3-4 figures for optional seats unless they're whale penis leather or carbon fiber buckets or something. But it would be pretty drat cool to see it, especially since it would also free up space in the interior, particularly for useless rear bench seats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:Manufacturers have almost never wanted you to work on your own car. Maybe some niche brand or utility vehicles back in the sixties, but there's too much money to be made milking people for $100/hr labor them selling them a new car after 3 years. See also, another non-awful Jack Baruth article: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/02/avoidable-contact-who-wants-to-last-forever/ quote:What we have with the Grumman LLV, then, is a vehicle which can last twenty-five years or longer with relatively unskilled maintenance. It uses inexpensive parts. It has plenty of space. With something besides an Iron Duke ahead of the firewall, it would probably even get decent gas mileage. I would ask “Why isn’t there a civilian version?” but the quickie answers to that — crash safety, uggo bumpers, hurricane-force highway wind noise — are too easy to produce. But then again, I'm the sort of unamerican communist who likes the idea of simple, basic things that are expressly designed to be easily fixed and to last for a very long time. Hell, my main laptop (that is, the one I use most, not my newest or nicest one) is now over 5 years old and has gotten by with only the addition of an SSD, a battery replacement, and a new keyboard after the old one got ruined by juice. I plan to use it until the only hard to replace moving parts - the hinge or the system fan - fail, or until it's no longer fast enough to do normal web browsing and word processing. Honestly, the idea of a car you can incrementally upgrade is pretty cool, too. You would pay more up front, but instead of buying a new car, you would take it in to be upgraded or completely refurbished every so many years. Naturally the number of people who would want this in a first-world country can probably be counted on two hands, to say nothing of manufacturers who would be horrified by the idea of competing with their own products 5-10 years down the line, but it's still a cool idea. Hell, it's probably better for the environment than most so-called "eco" cars. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Sep 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
an oddly awful oud posted:These people, of course, are still living in 1990 and failed to notice that in the intervening 20 years, every other person who mistakenly thought they were too cool for wagons bought an SUV or CUV, including those grannies. Thank you! I don't understand the mainstream hate for wagons. What exactly is wrong with a more versatile, sleek looking car that gets nearly identical mpg as the sedan version?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Honestly, the idea of a car you can incrementally upgrade is pretty cool, too. You would pay more up front, but instead of buying a new car, you would take it in to be upgraded or completely refurbished every so many years. Naturally the number of people who would want this in a first-world country can probably be counted on two hands, to say nothing of manufacturers who would be horrified by the idea of competing with their own products 5-10 years down the line, but it's still a cool idea. Hell, it's probably better for the environment than most so-called "eco" cars. All cars fall into this category*, it just requires one to investment in tooling, education, and time. The article sounds like a cake-and-eat-it scenario. A car that lasts forever and also never needs maintenance, or if it does you can do it in your driveway with a screwdriver and a mallet? If you really want a car that lasts forever, learning the proper way to maintain it and investing in the proper tooling to do so would go a long way further than dreaming of a day when some company invents a machine that never wears down or breaks. edit: *ok maybe not all cars... Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Sep 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
grover posted:Yeah, it's a pain in the rear end to get to the air filter on a 991 and other common failure items can be difficult and time consuming to get to, and that's always been a problem and tempered the used market somewhat, but I don't see how adding a third turbo will really make much difference with that respect. What really pisses me off is the non-user-resettable service light that you HAVE to either go back to the Porsche dealer to turn off or buy a $300 specialized tool that you can't even borrow from a friend because it's restricted to 3 VINs unless you cough up another $450. Real dick move by Porsche right there. $300? That's what, 2 hours labour at the garage? Or a set of brake pads? $300 sounds like a bargain considering we're talking about Porsche.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:See also, another non-awful Jack Baruth article: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/02/avoidable-contact-who-wants-to-last-forever/ It's a nice pipe-dream, but he ignores the fact that car companies stay in business by continuing to sell cars, and selling you a car you never have to replace may make you a happy customer, but it won't make you a repeat customer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
Linedance posted:All cars fall into this category*, it just requires one to investment in tooling, education, and time. The article sounds like a cake-and-eat-it scenario. A car that lasts forever and also never needs maintenance, or if it does you can do it in your driveway with a screwdriver and a mallet? If you really want a car that lasts forever, learning the proper way to maintain it and investing in the proper tooling to do so would go a long way further than dreaming of a day when some company invents a machine that never wears down or breaks. Err, no. Very few cars are highly modularized in an accessible way to the point where you could incrementally replace or interchange parts with updated, redesigned versions to the point where the only original thing left on the car is the chassis. The Subaru engine families, because they're so limited and interrelated, are an example of the opposite of this fairly unusual setup. As is any car with a huge aftermarket, like a Mustang or something, or else cars with extremely extensive platform sharing (and even then, parts compatibility is still iffy). This is also a thing that's distinct from the posted article. Did you actually read the article? You're coming up with stuff that absolutely wasn't mentioned in the article or my post quoting it at all. For all Baruth's faults as a writer, in this case he actually does a decent job of talking about three different approaches to the problem of designing a long-lasting car, the costs of doing so, and the reason why doing so is unrealistic due to consumer expectations as well as the manufacturer's business model itself. The first, which he called the Porsche approach, is to build to very high tolerances with expensive materials. Things will wear out and need replacements, but the basics of the car are high-quality and very durable, so you can run it for a very long time so long as you can tolerate the high up-front costs and additionally the high cost of replacement parts and maintenance. The second, the 80s Japanese car or "fat product" approach, is to basically overengineer and build a cheap car just a little better than it needs to be. The third way, which he gives the Grumman LLV as an example of, is to use extremely cheap and low-quality but easy to replace and easy to work on items for most parts, and to spend money on things that cannot easily be replaced like the chassis. The article discusses the hypothetical of a long-life Civic, a design that would involve the spending of additional engineering budget on a deliberately simplified and utilitarian vehicle that sacrifices other things, such as performance and price, in exchange for long-term life and ease of maintenance. Cars eventually fail because, at a certain point, the cost-cutting engineering decisions taken to reach a given price and performance point introduce points of wear and failure that are not cost-effective to replace or fix. One common example, especially in 80s cars, is corrosion, caused by saving money on rust-proofing, materials, etc. This can be exacerbated by design issues - for instance, packaging components for multiple subsystems into a single unit that must be replaced entirely, or else requiring specialized tools for access. You could draw a comparison to two popular premium lines of of laptops - the Thinkpad versus Apple. both are more expensive than your typical bottom-line consumer laptop. Apple laptops are nice, with high-spec components and excellent design and build quality, but they are extremely expensive and also specifically designed without easy maintenance in mind. There are no access hatches and often components are non-standard units that are soldered or glued in, often entire assemblies or the one-piece unibody itself is glued together, and even the replacement of wear items such as batteries requires the unit to be shipped to the factory. The Thinkpad was designed for durability and ease of maintenance for large corporate IT departments. Its styling is extremely utilitarian and hasn't changed since the 90s - everything is matte black and mostly square. It costs more than a cheap laptop, but not excessively so. Specs are usually competitive but conservatively low. But almost every component is user replaceable, usually without voiding the warranty, and durability was a much more important engineering criterion. The most commonly replaced components are accessible by removing only a few screws. This is due to the specifics of the market and customer as well as the simple fact that computers age so quickly that old or used laptops simply aren't much of a threat to the bottom line as it is for something different like a car. The closest thing to meeting such an ideal is probably going to be cars designed for large corporate fleets, particularly taxis or maybe, to a lesser extent, military vehicles. Just as with the Thinkpad, it's the specific needs of the customer that determines this, though it is distorted by the massive volume effects of the private consumer market on shared parts and engineering. I would be happy to drive a moderately civilianized version of a practical wagon-body taxi as a practical car, with a small sporty car in reserve for personal use. Plenty of others also love classic Jeeps and Hummers, with Jeeps in particular known (historically) for their adaptability and long-term durability at a reasonable cost. The Transit Connect passenger variant is probably the closest thing to such a car currently sold in the US. Either that or maybe (until last year) the Crown Victoria, though the engineering on that car is incredibly dated. A car like that, but substituting comfort instead of load capacity in the engineering. You can engineer a car that lasts longer and is reasonable to work on so long as you are willing to pay for it. However, there are very few modern cars out there made on this philosophy. Expensive cars usually spend their budget on power, performance, and complicated luxury features instead, trading off future reliability and maintenance costs on the knowledge that most buyers of high-end automobiles actually keep them for less time than the typical customer, and that they will expect to pay significantly more in maintenance costs. PeterWeller posted:It's a nice pipe-dream, but he ignores the fact that car companies stay in business by continuing to sell cars, and selling you a car you never have to replace may make you a happy customer, but it won't make you a repeat customer. Yes, I specifically stated that as the reason why this isn't the case. The other reason is cultural. Consumers want to buy new things all the time. The continuous consumption of goods, even if wasteful, is the key priority of a consumerist society. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Sep 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Welcome to capitalism? The goal isn't to make a great product, the goal is to make money. Making a great product is just one way to make make money, but you can't make it too great because then you wind up competing with yourself. Look at HP with their printers. The LaserJet 4 has a Volvo 240-esque reputation for reliability, but their later printers have a reputation for being temperamental pieces of poo poo. nVidia is competing with their 8800/9800/280 GTXs 4 years later (an eternity in computers!) in the midrange. It's not just the physical specs of the products either. You're competing with the reputation of the product, the memory consumers have of those products, because while a good product gives you a good reputation amongst consumers it also sets the bar higher for what you make in the future. Hell, the same idea exists in the labor market. Don't be too good, don't set expectations too high for your bosses, the consumers of your labor because you will be expected to do that all the time and that might not even be possible. True excellence is fleeting and the profit motive only ensures incrementing yourself slightly beyond your competitors. Anything else would be inefficient.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Err, no. Very few cars are highly modularized in an accessible way to the point where you could incrementally replace or interchange parts with updated, redesigned versions to the point where the only original thing left on the car is the chassis. The Subaru engine families, because they're so limited and interrelated, are an example of the opposite of this fairly unusual setup. As is any car with a huge aftermarket, like a Mustang or something, or else cars with extremely extensive platform sharing (and even then, parts compatibility is still iffy). This is also a thing that's distinct from the posted article. I gave up after reading his claim that a Porsche will outlast a Civic because a Civic will rust and need an engine rebuild, but a Porsche is galvanized and will also require an engine rebuild, but it's highly engineered. And also it requires "specialist maintenance". WTF is specialist mainenance? Sounds like another way of saying for "I don't know how to fix it and I'd rather pay someone else than learn". Welding some new sheet metal to patch up your rusty Civic could be called "specialist maintenance" too. You could also do something called "preventative maintenance" and it won't start rusting in the first place. I don't buy the argument that you can't maintain or upgrade a modern car because it isn't built from modular components. I also question the assertion that cars aren't built in modular fashion in the first place, they're a chassis containing replaceable components, the fact that you might need tools to change them doesn't make them not modular. Yes, manufacturers built to a price, and they aren't going to fit unobtanium wheel bearings to a cheap city car that isn't likely to see more than 10k miles/year. But if you want bearings that will last until judgement day, there's nothing stopping you from sourcing and fitting some.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
Linedance posted:I gave up after reading his claim that a Porsche will outlast a Civic because a Civic will rust and need an engine rebuild, but a Porsche is galvanized and will also require an engine rebuild, but it's highly engineered. And also it requires "specialist maintenance". How many early 80s Japanese cars are there surviving that aren't in Southern California? Those things rust at the drop of a hat, and the amount of preventative maintenance needed to prevent it is prohibitively extensive and difficult. Have you seriously never heard the claim that the air-cooled Porsches or old-school Mercedes last for a really long time and are very reliable? It's a pretty non-controversial claim and I'm mystified why you stopped reading out of disgust over it. Just like how a 90s Honda or Corolla will almost always outlast a contemporary Chevy Cavalier. One is a more reliable and long-lasting car than the other. I mean, this is the exact paragraph that made you mad: quote:Some of the iconic Japanese cars of the Eighties, such as the Civic and Corolla, were built using a different approach. They were what Toyota now calls “fat product” cars — vehicles built to be just a little better than they really needed to be. The engineering of these cars was very thorough, money was spent where it needed to be spent to ensure mechanical reliability, and as a result you can drive a 1989 Honda Civic a very long time. Eventually, you will fall prey to the relatively low cost of the materials used in said Honda Civic. The body will rust or corrode. The engine will wear out and will not accept another rebuild. A Civic won’t last as long as a 911, but it won’t cost you nearly as much time or effort to keep it running during its lifetime. How is this wrong? The rustproofing on an 80s Civic is notably inferior compared to the rustproofing on a contemporary Porsche. Linedance posted:I don't buy the argument that you can't maintain or upgrade a modern car because it isn't built from modular components. I also question the assertion that cars aren't built in modular fashion in the first place, they're a chassis containing replaceable components, the fact that you might need tools to change them doesn't make them not modular. Yes, manufacturers built to a price, and they aren't going to fit unobtanium wheel bearings to a cheap city car that isn't likely to see more than 10k miles/year. But if you want bearings that will last until judgement day, there's nothing stopping you from sourcing and fitting some. You're confusing two points. I talked about the idea of a car that can be upgraded as a side point unrelated to the main point and not discussed in the article. You're also missing the point: during engineering, modularity is often not prioritized enough to make replacement easy or inexpensive. Because the design priorities chosen when building to a price emphasize things other than long life, durability, or ease of maintenance. Also, if you want bearings that will last forever, there absolutely is something stopping you from sourcing such a thing and it's called "volume."
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:How many early 80s Japanese cars are there surviving that aren't in Southern California? Those things rust at the drop of a hat, and the amount of preventative maintenance needed to prevent it is prohibitively extensive and difficult. "A Civic won't last as long as a 911". That is what I object to because it is patently false, regardless of age. A car will last as long as it is cared for. A Civic kept in the kind of conditions he keeps his 911 in will last as long. If a part of the body starts to rust it isn't a problem to repair. If it gets neglected, it might require more extensive repair. If it is kept in a climate controlled garage all winter and only driven on sunny spring days, there is no reason it wouldn't last as long as a 911. There are million mile Toyotas, Hondas, Mercedeses, Saabs, you name it, it all comes down to how well cared for the car is. quote:You're also missing the point: during engineering, modularity is often not prioritized enough to make replacement easy or inexpensive. Because the design priorities chosen when building to a price emphasize things other than long life, durability, or ease of maintenance. Modularity might make things easier (and cheaper if you're paying for the labour of someone to replace the module), but it makes for more expensive parts. If you do the work, modularity costs more, but saves you time. If you pay someone to do the work, you still have to pay the increased parts cost, but at least you save on the labour bill. Either way, you pay more for modular components. The reason is because if a single component in the module fails, you replace the whole module, including all the serviceable bits in it too. Not a problem if you're overhauling it, but you aren't because you want an easy to replace module. quote:You're confusing two points. I talked about the idea of a car that can be upgraded as a side point unrelated to the main point and not discussed in the article. What kind of car can't be upgraded? This forum is full of examples of modifying and upgrading cars. Sometimes you might need to fabricate stuff, or adapt stuff to fit, but it isn't rocket science. Even your comment on volume, if you have the specifications, chances are you can find off-the-shelf solutions that will work. And if you can't you can always replace the module that contains the bearing with something from a Porsche and fabricate some mounts or adapters so it fits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 23:04
|
|
|
discstickers posted:M badge on the dead pedal BMW followed MBZ and Audi and loving plastered the poor beast with M badges as part of the m-sport package. Dead Pedal, Steering Wheel, Shifter, huge ones on all 4 door sills and of course, on the rimz. It's silly and a bit embarrassing, tbh - as the only race I'd beat an M5 at is some sort of ultra-long distance fuel efficiency challenge. Keyser_Soze fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Sep 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
Linedance posted:"A Civic won't last as long as a 911". That is what I object to because it is patently false, regardless of age. A car will last as long as it is cared for. A Civic kept in the kind of conditions he keeps his 911 in will last as long. If a part of the body starts to rust it isn't a problem to repair. If it gets neglected, it might require more extensive repair. If it is kept in a climate controlled garage all winter and only driven on sunny spring days, there is no reason it wouldn't last as long as a 911. There are million mile Toyotas, Hondas, Mercedeses, Saabs, you name it, it all comes down to how well cared for the car is. He's talking about cars in normal use, not garage queens. You are looking at things in a very strange way. The average daily-driven 911 or Mercedes will outlast an average Civic even under similar use cases most of the time because the quality of the materials means that they will not wear as hard or require as much maintenance. How are you missing this very simple point? Especially early 80s Civics, which often had extremely suspect rustproofing and could rust even if garaged due to water drains, etc. The unspoken condition here is under normal conditions, not ideal conditions. You could hypothetically make any car last forever if you had enough money and time to throw at it. But we're talking about doing so practically. Some cars are going to be easier to do this with than others due to how they're made and what they're made out of. The discussion of average use cases exists, since the average conditions for a cheap economy car are different from an expensive sports car, though I don't think it's merited because the example he uses of the air-cooled Porsches are cars that are considered long-lived and reliable even compared to other Porsches, and certainly compared to other sports cars. Linedance posted:Modularity might make things easier (and cheaper if you're paying for the labour of someone to replace the module), but it makes for more expensive parts. If you do the work, modularity costs more, but saves you time. If you pay someone to do the work, you still have to pay the increased parts cost, but at least you save on the labour bill. Either way, you pay more for modular components. The reason is because if a single component in the module fails, you replace the whole module, including all the serviceable bits in it too. Not a problem if you're overhauling it, but you aren't because you want an easy to replace module. Again, you're missing the point. I said "volume" because without enough volume, the cost of producing custom one-off specialty parts is astronomical. Which means that, again, it's technically possible but practically unfeasible. Even mounts and adapters often require a nontrivial amount of engineering and fabrication for them to work. You also are misunderstanding what I meant when I said "modular." In particular, I'm talking about standardized, interchangeable parts with a common interface allowing for later reconfiguration of options, not unit-replaceable packages of components. Custom-fabricating stuff is pretty much the opposite of an easy upgrade. The idea, which was nothing more than idle speculation by the way, is for it to be something that is built in by design and is affordable and practicable for everyday use, similar to how dealer-installed bolt-on performance parts are handled, with warranties and everything. In fact, in general, the upgradability of most modern cars is shrinking significantly as manufacturer engineering cuts things closer to thresholds, necessitating more complicated engineering and more extensive replacements of existing components. Yes, hypothetically you could fab up all your parts yourself. But a normal carowner is not going to do that. Even an enthusiast is not going to easily bodge up major performance parts in their garage, especially if you care about safety or reliability.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
grover posted:I get their strategy, though: what do people do for the hour or two while they're waiting for their car to be serviced? They look at new Porsches! Actually, that's how I ended up with the Panamera. As soon as I filled out the paperwork they asked if I needed a car, took my information and handed me the keys. I didn't even get to drool over the GT3 they had. (So I went to the dealership I bought the Elise from and checked out their 997.1 GT3 RS. Absolutely nuts.) 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 01:05
|
|
Zoom Zoom, motherfuckers
|
KozmoNaut posted:Ha, I love that. I'm told a small piece of tape works, too. grover fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Sep 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:He's talking about cars in normal use, not garage queens. You are looking at things in a very strange way. The average daily-driven 911 or Mercedes will outlast an average Civic even under similar use cases most of the time because the quality of the materials means that they will not wear as hard or require as much maintenance. Just for clarification: you're claiming that a US-market 2012 Porsche 911 or 2012 Mercedes-Benz C300 will require less maintenance and last longer than a 2012 Honda Civic?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:He's talking about cars in normal use, not garage queens. You are looking at things in a very strange way. The average daily-driven 911 or Mercedes will outlast an average Civic even under similar use cases most of the time because the quality of the materials means that they will not wear as hard or require as much maintenance. How are you missing this very simple point? Especially early 80s Civics, which often had extremely suspect rustproofing and could rust even if garaged due to water drains, etc. The unspoken condition here is under normal conditions, not ideal conditions. Porsche never really got rustproofing right until the 964 generation of 911s; daily-driving a 911, especially in a climate that sees even a hint of snow, would end with your car in Sockington's garage within five years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:Just for clarification: you're claiming that a US-market 2012 Porsche 911 or 2012 Mercedes-Benz C300 will require less maintenance and last longer than a 2012 Honda Civic?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
Somebody buy me a 911 & my wife a civic & I'll settle this argument once & for all (in 10 years)
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 07:46
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:Somebody buy me a 911 & my wife a civic & I'll settle this argument once & for all (in 10 years) K, I got you one where the owner said, "IMS? I have no idea what that is. No I don't have service records." Obviously there've been lemon Civics, too, but the things I've heard about motors on some P-cars make me think high quality materials and decent design isn't enough to prevent cars with needy maintenance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
I don't think ten years is long enough for your experiment to be meaningful anyway - it'd have to be at least double that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 07:59
|
|
|
Just stick to GT3s and you'll be all right. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 08:00
|
|
|
This aside reminded me of this post that showed up on my Facebook feed a few days ago:  She's really smart and gets to travel the world doing biochem things, but she just needs to buy a slightly used Corolla and call it a day. "Price per miles left in the vehicle." 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 11:40
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:This aside reminded me of this post that showed up on my Facebook feed a few days ago: "This Ford Focus is at 80k miles, so it only has 70k miles left until explosion."
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 12:33
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:"This Ford Focus is at 80k miles, so it only has 70k miles left until explosion." I've heard worse methods of choosing a car (I'm thinking of my wifes method of 'Do I like the colour and is it a hideously ugly brick?'). At least she will get a feel for what is reliable or not, and can choose from a far wider set of cars compared to if she just did what some people do and go for the first car they find that is $3,000, less then 5 years old and under 60,000 miles (for example).
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 12:52
|
|
|
cynic posted:I've heard worse methods of choosing a car (I'm thinking of my wifes method of 'Do I like the colour and is it a hideously ugly brick?'). At least she will get a feel for what is reliable or not, and can choose from a far wider set of cars compared to if she just did what some people do and go for the first car they find that is $3,000, less then 5 years old and under 60,000 miles (for example). Yeah, in theory the idea is good. In phrasing it comes out a little bit too  but hey this is AI after all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 12:54
|
|
|
Making an ultra durable car is a waste of time because most cars will eventually be scrapped due to rust or body damage from a car accident, force of nature, etc. That ultra-durable philosophy can be applied to a "sunny day" car like a Porsche that accumulates comparatively few miles and avoids severe weather in the confines of a garage. Also, anything that adds $1 at the time of manufacturing is going to add $4 or more at the time of sale. An extra $1000 on rustproofing will add $4000 to the price tag on the car. This is fine when selling a halo car, but it doesn't work at all when trying to sell a commuter vehicle. It also weakens the confidence of buyers of the 'regular' version of the car. Ford sells a version of the Taurus to police fleets. The "cop version" has things like upgraded wheel bearings to cope with the severe duty cycle of police vehicles. Why don't they put those tougher wheel bearings on all Taurus models?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
Because they're not necessary and other parts of the car will fail far in advance of the wheel bearings on a normal duty schedule, and consumers would prefer to save a couple hundred bucks on something they really don't need and doesn't have any noticeable impact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:Just for clarification: you're claiming that a US-market 2012 Porsche 911 or 2012 Mercedes-Benz C300 will require less maintenance and last longer than a 2012 Honda Civic? No, the comparison was specifically a 1989 Civic or 1990 VW Fox to the last of the air-cooled Porsches (964 and 993) or a W123 Mercedes. Modern cars were excepted from the comparison, since the comment made was that modern Porsches and Mercedes are made to different standards and no longer last an unusually long time compared to cheaper cars, because manufacturers figured out that almost nobody cares how long their luxury car lasts vs. spending that engineering budget on other stuff people like like engine output or interior leather, and long-lived used cars only cut into their sales of Boxsters and C-classes. This statement also ignores how much economy cars have improved relative to the luxury cars of the 80s and 90s. A modern economy car is still probably going to outlive its interior, whereas most cheap cars from the 80s were pretty universally prone to rusting out. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Sep 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:This aside reminded me of this post that showed up on my Facebook feed a few days ago: I bet this is not only incredibly slanted towards the car that she wants -- i.e., that sweet rear end Generic SUV would go 500,000 miles easy will Cheap Commuter will fall apart at 80k -- but it probably fails to take into account the expensive of maintenance items associated with a car of a specific age.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
PBCrunch posted:Ford sells a version of the Taurus to police fleets. The "cop version" has things like upgraded wheel bearings to cope with the severe duty cycle of police vehicles. Why don't they put those tougher wheel bearings on all Taurus models? It's especially funny when the "normal" part ends up being insufficient and the special durable one ends up becoming the standard part. Like S197 mustang LCA/balljoints. '05-'08 had the original balljoint design which wore out very quickly. They originally introduced a stronger one (FRPP-branded) with the GT500 in '07. When they realized the regular ones were failing in 50k they quietly made the FRPP part the normal part on all mustangs. See also: subaru 2.5 headgaskets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 16:30
|
|
|
PBCrunch posted:Making an ultra durable car is a waste of time because most cars will eventually be scrapped due to rust or body damage from a car accident, force of nature, etc. The accident argument seems fairly reasonable, though you would have to look at accident rates over time to see just how common it is to total out cars over time (I bet it's less common than you think). But not really the rust one. You can stop rust by spending money on engineering. The whole point being made is that there's no technical reason a car can't be designed to last for a long time, and that the only real reason this isn't done is because most consumers don't want to pay for it or care too much about it. Even ignoring materials like aluminum, plastics, and composites that don't corrode easily, even a modern high-quality steel chassis will probably outlast the other major components on the car, and could easily be made to do so so long as you were willing to tolerate increased costs. Money most people aren't willing to pay, of course, but the whole discussion revolves around a hypothetical consumer who would be willing to pay more for less if it lasts longer. The example given of the Grumman LLV, for instance, is pretty much impervious to body corrosion, and maintenance and refit costs are mostly limited to wear components as well as the cheap and lovely running gear (taken from an old Chevy truck). There are huge numbers of them still in use by the Postal Service, etc., despite them being in pretty much continuous use since the mid-eighties. Eventually they'll all fail or be destroyed due to accidents, metal fatigue, etc., but the whole point is that it's an example of a car that was specifically designed for a very long service life. I know this is a pointless discussion, since it revolves around a hypothetical that basically doesn't exist, but I can't stop responding to people when their responses miss the point. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Sep 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
The LLV doesn't meet consumer needs in a meaningful way, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 04:26 |
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:I know this is a pointless discussion, since it revolves around a hypothetical that basically doesn't exist, but I can't stop responding to people when their responses miss the point. I will freely admit to completely missing the point, because I believe that cars, especially modern ones, are built to last. And with proper care, servicing, and preventative maintenance measures they can last indefinitely. I could go to a Hyundai dealership tomorrow, buy a new car, and there's no reason I couldn't run that car for 25 years or more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 18:19
|
|